[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3vdghtuy1.fsf@intrepid.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 15:13:42 +0100
From: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Andy Walls <awalls@...ix.net>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...sonet.com>,
Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, j@...nau.net,
jarod@...hat.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
superm1@...ntu.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com> writes:
> With RC-5, you have no fields describing the remote. So, all the driver could
> do is an educated guess.
It can't even do that, e.g. single remotes (even the dumb ones) can send
different code groups (addresses) for different keys.
> IMO, the better is to have an API to allow creation of multiple interfaces
> per IR receiver, based on some scancode matching table and/or on some
> matching mask.
I think setting the keytables for each logical device would do.
I.e. just have a way to create additional logical devices. Each can have
its own keytable. The decoders would send their output to all logical
remotes, trying to match the tables etc.
> It should be possible to use the filter API to match different IR's by
> vendor/product on protocols that supports it,
That would mean unnecessary limiting.
> or to match address/command
> tuples on protocols where you just have those fields.
Precisely.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
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