linux-kernel - Re: In-kernel IR remote control support

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081123180146.GA7731@ucw.cz>
Date:	Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:01:46 +0100
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@...e.cz>
To:	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>
Cc:	jonsmirl@...il.com, jrm8005@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: In-kernel IR remote control support

Hi!

> Who is telling you that LIRC cannot work like simply plugging in the  
> receiver and start using the remote?

Well, I don't have to install special userland to make USB keyboard to
work,  and I don't see why remote controls should be different.

> You can have LIRC setup to decode all common remote control protocols.  
> It's just a matter of proper packaging and pre-configuration.

...which distributions don't generally do because they avoid
out-of-tree patches...?

> > 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?

It is more complex in the obscure case, agreed; but the common case
gets simpler and I believe tradeoff is worth it.

> 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.

Remote controls do look like keyboards; that's why people want to use
input layer.

Unlike normal keyboards, 'tcpdump' or 'irdump' makes a lot of sense
for remote controls, but so what?

> > 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.

I don't see why we could not use Jon's code for common remotes decoded
mostly by hw, and your code for the obscure cases.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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/