linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure

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: <m3zl6dq8ig.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date:	Mon, 23 Nov 2009 21:41:11 +0100
From:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Cc:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mario Limonciello <superm1@...ntu.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure

Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com> writes:

> If you see patch 3/3, of the lirc submission series, you'll notice a driver
> that has hardware decoding, but, due to lirc interface, the driver generates
> pseudo pulse/space code for it to work via lirc interface.

IOW the driver generates artificial pulse code for lircd?
I think - pure bloat. lircd can get events from input layer without
problems. Perhaps I misunderstood?

> It is very bad to have two interfaces for the same thing, because people
> may do things like that.

I think having a "raw" scan code interface + the key code "cooked" mode
is beneficial. For remotes lacking the raw interface only the latter
could be used.

> Also, there are some cases where the same V4L driver can receive IR scancodes
> directly for one board, while for others, it needs to get pulse/space
> decoding.

Sure.

> This is an interesting discussion. We currently have lots of such tables in
> kernel, but it can be a good idea to have it loaded by udev during
> boot time.

Sure.

> Are you meaning that we should do more than one RC per input event
> interface?

I think so. Why not?

For example, one of my remotes generates codes from at least two RC5
groups (in only one "mode"). Currently a remote is limited to only one
RC5 group.

I think the mapping should be: key = proto + group + raw code, while
key2 could be different_proto + different group (if any) + another code.

> If so, why do you think we need to handle more than one IR protocol at
> the same time?

Why not?
There are X-in-1 remotes on the market for years. They can "speak" many
protocols at once. One may want to have a protocol to handle DVD apps
while another for DVB etc.
And someone may want to use several different remotes, why not?
Personally I use two different remotes (both set to speak RC5 but what
if I couldn't set the protocol?). Sure, it requires a bit of hackery
(not with pulse code and lircd).

> I think this will just make the driver more complex without need.

Not much more, and there is a need.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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/