linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?

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: <9e4733910911291347x4c4cac73h8c64223d0de563e4@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:47:18 -0500
From:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>, Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>,
	"j@...nau.net" <j@...nau.net>,
	"jarod@...hat.com" <jarod@...hat.com>,
	"jarod@...sonet.com" <jarod@...sonet.com>,
	"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
	"maximlevitsky@...il.com" <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
	"mchehab@...hat.com" <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	"stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de" <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
	"superm1@...ntu.com" <superm1@...ntu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR 
	system?

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed at
>>>  least?
>>>
>>> 2. Is there any problem with lirc kernel-user interface?
>>
>> Can you consider sending the raw IR data as a new evdev message type
>> instead of creating a new device protocol?
>
> No, I think it would be wrong. Such events are ill-suited for consumption by
> regular applications and would introduce the "looping" interface I described
> in my other email.

Regular applications are going to ignore these messages. The only
consumer for them is the LIRC daemon. Which is just going to process
them and re-inject the events back into evdev again in a different
form.

IR is an input device, what make it so special that it needs to by
pass this subsystem and implement its own private communications
scheme?

>> evdev protects the messages in a transaction to stop incomplete
>> messages from being read.
>
> If such property is desired we can add it to the new lirc-like interface,
> can't we?

Why do you want to redesign evdev instead of using it?


>
> --
>>
> Dmitry
>



-- 
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@...il.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/