| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: 23 Nov 2008 10:14:00 +0100 From: lirc@...telmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) To: pavel@...e.cz Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: In-kernel IR remote control support Hi Pavel, on 15 Nov 08 at 12:58, Pavel Machek wrote: [...] > On Thu 2008-11-13 00:09:00, Christoph Bartelmus wrote: >> Hi, >> >> on 12 Nov 08 at 14:39, J.R. Mauro wrote: >> [...] >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsm...@...il.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:59 PM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8...@...il.com> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsm...@...il.com> wrote: >>>>>> New release of in-kernel IR support implementing evdev support. The >>>>>> goal of in-kernel IR is to integrate IR events into the evdev input >>>>>> event queue and maintain ordering of events from all input devices. >>>>>> Still looking for help with this project. >> >>>>> (Forgive me if this has already been asked or dealt with) >> >>>>> Have you contacted the LIRC developers? Is there any overlap between >>>>> your projects? >> >>>> The LIRC people know about this. Pieces of the code are coming from >>>> the LIRC source base and being reworked for kernel inclusion. >> >>> Great, it's nice to see there's cooperation. >> >> LOL. There's just a small omission from Jon's side... >> Yes, LIRC people know about this. And Jon has a no-go from me. >> >> Decoding IR protocols in-kernel is the wrong way IMHO and this will not be >> supported by LIRC as long as I maintain LIRC. > Time to fork lirc...? This wouldn't be a fork. It has nothing to do with how LIRC currently is working. > Can you elaborate? I don't see why IR remotes deserve special > handling. I'd expect to just plug in the receiver and have it work as > /dev/input/*. > >> It's simply not possible to decode all existing IR protocols and LIRC just >> stores the timing data for these protocols as-is without trying to decode >> them. With the in-kernel decoding approach these remotes cannot be >> supported. I'm not willing to sacrifice the support for these even though >> they only consist of a very small fraction of remotes in use. > So you make it suck for everyone just because few obscure IR > remotes. Perfect enemy of good, I'd say :-(. Watch your words. This is getting personal. Who is telling you that LIRC cannot work like simply plugging in the receiver and start using the remote? You can have LIRC setup to decode all common remote control protocols. It's just a matter of proper packaging and pre-configuration. You don't have to write a single line of code for this (I still have to add uinput support, though, which I probably would have done by now, if I weren't busy writing posts like this). > Can we merge the common ones into the kernel, while still keeping the > obscure ones in userspace using uinput or something? Why do you want to complicate things even more. When you have an obscure protocol, you have to use LIRC style kernel drivers anyway. Why not use them for all protocols if you need them anyway? Everyone seems to be so focussed on the input layer, that he does not even consider that it might not be the right approach for all cases. > I don't see why Jon's work bothers you. He's trying to do the right > support for the common remotes. That seems like a net plus to me, and > you can still keep the obscure ones in userland. Jon's code and the LIRC approach exclude each other. It does not make sense to have both in the kernel. There have been attempts to clean up LIRC code to be included in the kernel. The current discussion lessens my hope that this will happen anytime soon. The decision to include some IR support using the Linux input layer some time ago has forced *me* to add support for this in LIRC and explain to people why for some devices they need LIRC drivers, and for some they need the kernel drivers, and for other configurations they have to explicitly disable the kernel drivers and replace them by LIRC drivers, etc. I'm just telling you now, that I will not do this work again for the drivers in question. Christoph -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists