[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B116954.5050706@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:17:56 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>
CC: Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, khc@...waw.pl,
awalls@...ix.net, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, j@...nau.net,
jarod@...hat.com, jarod@...sonet.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
maximlevitsky@...il.com, mchehab@...hat.com, superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel
IR system?
Jon Smirl wrote:
> There are two very basic things that we need to reach consensus on first.
>
> 1) Unification with mouse/keyboard in evdev - put IR on equal footing.
> 2) Specific tools (xmodmap, setkeycodes, etc or the LIRC ones) or
> generic tools (ls, mkdir, echo) for configuration
About 2: If at all, there only needs to be a decision about pulse/space
to scancode converter configuration. In contrast, scancode to keycode
converter configuration is already solved; the interface is
EVIOCSKEYCODE. If you find the EVIOCSKEYCODE interface lacking, extend
it or submit an alternative --- but this does not affect LIRC and
whether to merge it in any way.
PS: Drop your "specific vs. generic tools" terminology already. Your
configfs based proposal requires "specific" tools as well, it's just
that they can be implemented in bash, among else.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-== ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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