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]

Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 14:07:08 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>
Cc:	mchehab@...hat.com, awalls@...ix.net, j@...nau.net,
	jarod@...hat.com, jarod@...sonet.com, jonsmirl@...il.com,
	khc@...waw.pl, kraxel@...hat.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
	superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel
	IR  system?

On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 10:46:00PM +0100, Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
> Hi Mauro,
> 
> on 04 Dec 09 at 12:33, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
> >>>> Consider passing the decoded data through lirc_dev.
> [...]
> >> Consider cases like this:
> >> http://lirc.sourceforge.net/remotes/lg/6711A20015N
> >>
> >> This is an air-conditioner remote.
> >> The entries that you see in this config file are not really separate
> >> buttons. Instead the remote just sends the current settings for e.g.
> >> temperature encoded in the protocol when you press some up/down key. You
> >> really don't want to map all possible temperature settings to KEY_*
> >> events. For such cases it would be nice to have access at the raw scan
> >> codes from user space to do interpretation of the data.
> >> The default would still be to pass the data to the input layer, but it
> >> won't hurt to have the possibility to access the raw data somehow.
> 
> > Interesting. IMHO, the better would be to add an evdev ioctl to return the
> > scancode for such cases, instead of returning the keycode.
> 
> That means you would have to set up a pseudo keymap, so that you can get  
> the key event which you could than react on with a ioctl. Or are you  
> generating KEY_UNKNOWN for every scancode that is not mapped?
> What if different scan codes are mapped to the same key event? How do you  
> retrieve the scan code for the key event?
> I don't think it can work this way.
> 

EV_MSC/MSC_SCAN.

-- 
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/