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
| ||
|
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:48:11 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> To: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...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 Nov 29, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com> wrote: > 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? So are HID devices (both USB and BT), PS/2 and so on. You are not arguing for sending unprocessed data from these devices through evdev. > >>> 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? > I just said why in my previous email: looping is a mark of badly designed interface. -- Dmitry -- 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