Message-ID: <9e4733910912021620s7a2b09a8v88dd45eef38835a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:20:50 -0500
From:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>
To:	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>,
	Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@...nellabs.com>,
	Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>, awalls@...ix.net,
	j@...nau.net, 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 Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> On 12/2/09 12:30 PM, Jon Smirl wrote:
>>>>>>> (for each remote/substream that they can recognize).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm assuming that, by remote, you're referring to a remote receiver (and not to
>>>>>>>> the remote itself), right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we could separate by remote transmitter that would be the best I
>>>>>> think, but I understand that it is rarely possible?
>>>>
>>>> The code I posted using configfs did that. Instead of making apps IR
>>>> aware it mapped the vendor/device/command triplets into standard Linux
>>>> keycodes.  Each remote was its own evdev device.
>>>
>>> Note, of course, that you can only do that iff each remote uses distinct
>>> triplets. A good portion of mythtv users use a universal of some sort,
>>> programmed to emulate another remote, such as the mce remote bundled
>>> with mceusb transceivers, or the imon remote bundled with most imon
>>> receivers. I do just that myself.
>>>
>>> Personally, I've always considered the driver/interface to be the
>>> receiver, not the remote. The lirc drivers operate at the receiver
>>> level, anyway, and the distinction between different remotes is made by
>>> the lirc daemon.
>>
>> The fact that lirc does it this way does not necessarily mean it is the
>> most corerct way.
>
> No, I know that, I'm just saying that's how I've always looked at it, and that's how lirc does it right now, not that it must be that way.
>
>> Do you expect all bluetooth input devices be presented
>> as a single blob just because they happen to talk to the sane receiver
>> in yoru laptop? Do you expect your USB mouse and keyboard be merged
>> together just because they end up being serviced by the same host
>> controller? If not why remotes should be any different?
>
> A bluetooth remote has a specific device ID that the receiver has to pair with. Your usb mouse and keyboard each have specific device IDs. A usb IR *receiver* has a specific device ID, the remotes do not. So there's the major difference from your examples.

Actually remotes do have an ID. They all transmit vendor/device pairs
which is exactly how USB works.

>
>> Now I understand that if 2 remotes send completely identical signals we
>> won't be able to separate them, but in cases when we can I think we
>> should.
>
> I don't have a problem with that, if its a truly desired feature. But for the most part, I don't see the point. Generally, you go from having multiple remotes, one per device (where "device" is your TV, amplifier, set top box, htpc, etc), to having a single universal remote that controls all of those devices. But for each device (IR receiver), *one* IR command set. The desire to use multiple distinct remotes with a single IR receiver doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just not creative enough in my use of IR. :)
>
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod@...sonet.com
>
>
>
>



-- 
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