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: <E50C6702-FDCB-4473-813D-53A87064BAF7@gmail.com>
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/