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: <4B0EAE5B.6050507@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 14:35:39 -0200
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>
CC:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>,
	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, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was:
 Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure

Andy Walls wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 11:25 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

>> I'm not sure if all the existing hardware for TX currently supports only
>> raw pulse/code sequencies, but I still think that, even on the Tx case, 
>> it is better to send scancodes to the driver, and let it do the conversion
>> to raw pulse/code, if the hardware requires pulse/code instead of scancodes. 
> 
> That seems like a decision which will create a lots of duplicative code
> in the kernel.  Add it's just busy-work to write such code when a
> userspace application in common use already handles the protocols and
> sends raw pulses to hardware that expects raw pulses.

I don't see how this would create lots of duplicative code.

>> However, as we have green field,
>> I would add the protocol explicitly for each scancode to be transmitted, like:
>>
>> struct ir_tx {
>> 	enum ir_protocol proto;
>> 	u32 scancode;
>> };
>>
>> Eventually, we might have a protocol "raw" and some extra field to allow passing
>> a raw pulse/code sequence instead of a scancode.
> 
> I think you would have to.  32 bits is really not enough for all
> protocols, and it is already partial encoding of information anyway.
> 
> If the Tx driver has to break them down into pulses anyway, 

Do all Tx drivers need handle pulse by pulse, or there are some that works
only with scancodes?

> why not have fields with more meaningful names
> 
> 	mode
> 	toggle
> 	customer code (or system code or address),
> 	information (or command)
> 
> According to
> 
> 	http://slycontrol.ru/scr/kb/rc6.htm
> 
> the "information" field could be up to 128 bits.

Seems fine to me.

> (Not that I'm going to put any RC-6 Mode 6A decoding/encoding in the
> kernel.)		
> 
> Regards,
> Andy
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Mauro.
> 
> 

--
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/