[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9e4733910912011127r4a40b75epf712006c47fe9061@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:27:35 -0500
From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@...nellabs.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>, awalls@...ix.net,
j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com, jarod@...sonet.com, khc@...waw.pl,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, lirc-list@...ts.sourceforge.net,
superm1@...ntu.com, Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab@...hat.com> wrote:
> Due to the lack of an API for it, each driver has their own way to handle the
> protocols, but basically, on almost all drivers, even supporting different protocols,
> the driver limits the usage of just the protocol provided by the shipped remote.
>
> To solve this, we really need to extend evdev API to do 3 things: enumberate the
> supported protocols, get the current protocol(s), and select the protocol(s) that
> will be used by a newer table.
evdev capabilities bits can support enumerating the supported
protocols. I'm not sure if you can write those bits back into evdev to
turn a feature off/on. If not its something that could be added to
evdev.
I agree that there is no consistency in the existing driver implementations.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists