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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:32:37 -0500
From:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com>
To:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
CC:	Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, khc@...waw.pl,
	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

On 11/26/2009 08:54 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Jarod Wilson wrote:
>> On Nov 23, 2009, at 7:53 PM, Andy Walls wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 22:11 +0100, Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
>> ...
>>> I generally don't understand the LIRC aversion I perceive in this thread
>>> (maybe I just have a skewed perception).  Aside for a video card's
>>> default remote setup, the suggestions so far don't strike me as any
>>> simpler for the end user than LIRC -- maybe I'm just used to LIRC.  LIRC
>>> already works for both transmit and receive and has existing support in
>>> applications such as MythTV and mplayer.
>>
>> There's one gripe I agree with, and that is that its still not plug-n-play.
>> Something where udev auto-loads a sane default remote config for say,
>> mceusb transceivers, and the stock mce remote Just Works would be nice,
>> but auto-config is mostly out the window the second you involve transmitters
>> and universal remotes anyway.
>
> For several devices, an udev rule that auto-loads a sane default keymap does work.
> Of course, this won't cover 100% of the usages, and I lirc is a very good way
> of covering the holes.
>
>> But outside of that, I think objections are largely philosophical --
>> in a nutshell, the kernel has an input layer, remotes are input devices,
>> and lirc doesn't conform to input layer standards.
>
> Yes. I think this is mainly the issue.
>
> The other issue is how to migrate the existing drivers to a new API without
> causing regressions. If we decide that IR's that receive raw pulse/code
> should use the raw input interface, this means that a large task force will be
> needed to convert the existing drivers to use it.

Aversion to regression is definitely a major concern. And why I'm liking 
the idea of a hybrid approach, at least initially.

> What do you think of adding lirc at staging while we discuss/improve the API's and lircd
> support for the input event interface? Do you think this would work?

Sure, I don't see why not. And I've got another dozen or so drivers to 
follow those first three... :)

-- 
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/