[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E88E119C-BB86-4F01-8C2C-E514AC6BA5E2@wilsonet.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:43:24 -0500
From: Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com>
To: Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@...nellabs.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, awalls@...ix.net,
dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, mchehab@...hat.com, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ?
On Nov 25, 2009, at 1:20 PM, Devin Heitmueller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com> wrote:
>> Took me a minute to figure out exactly what you were talking about. You're referring to the current in-kernel decoding done on an ad-hoc basis for assorted remotes bundled with capture devices, correct?
>>
>> Admittedly, unifying those and the lirc driven devices hasn't really been on my radar.
>
> This is one of the key use cases I would be very concerned with. For
> many users who have bought tuner products, the bundled remotes work
> "out-of-the-box", regardless of whether lircd is installed. I have no
> objection so much as to saying "well, you have to install the lircd
> service now", but there needs to be a way for the driver to
> automatically tell lirc what the default remote control should be, to
> avoid a regression in functionality. We cannot go from a mode where
> it worked automatically to a mode where now inexperienced users now
> have to deal with the guts of getting lircd properly configured.
Agreed. Auto-config of lircd for remotes bundled with receivers is definitely on the TODO list. It sorta kinda works using gnome-lirc-properties, but well, that's not an actual lirc project component, and from what I've seen, its fairly incomplete (and reproduces a device ID list within its own code, that has never been fully updated to match the list of stuff the lirc drivers actually support).
> If such an interface were available, I would see to it that at least
> all the devices I have added RC support for will continue to work
> (converting the in-kernel RC profiles to lirc RC profiles as needed
> and doing the associations with the driver).
>
> The other key thing I don't think we have given much thought to is the
> fact that in many tuners, the hardware does RC decoding and just
> returns NEC/RC5/RC6 codes. And in many of those cases, the hardware
> has to be configured to know what format to receive. We probably need
> some kernel API such that the hardware can tell lirc what formats are
> supported, and another API call to tell the hardware which mode to
> operate in.
Well, we've got a number of IOCTLs already, could extend those. (Although its been suggested elsewhere that we replace the IOCTLs with sysfs knobs). A simple sysfs attr that contains the name of the default config file for the bundled remote of a given receiver would seem simple enough to implement.
> This is why I think we really should put together a list of use cases,
> so that we can see how any given proposal addresses those use cases.
> I offered to do such, but nobody seemed really interested in this.
D'oh, sorry, I recall reading that email, but neglected to respond. Yes, I think that's useful, and would gladly contribute to the list.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@...sonet.com
--
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