Message-ID: <4BACED6B.9030409@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:22:51 -0300
From:	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...hat.com>
To:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC:	Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@...il.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
	Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
	hermann pitton <hermann-pitton@...or.de>,
	Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@...telmus.de>, awalls@...ix.net,
	j@...nau.net, jarod@...hat.com, jarod@...sonet.com,
	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?

Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:40:41AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>> David Härdeman wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:42:33AM -0300, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>>>>        10) extend keycode table replacement to support big/variable 
>>>>>        sized scancodes;
>>>> Pending.
>>>>
>>>> The current limit here is the scancode ioctl's are defined as:
>>>>
>>>> #define EVIOCGKEYCODE           _IOR('E', 0x04, int[2])                 /* get keycode */
>>>> #define EVIOCSKEYCODE           _IOW('E', 0x04, int[2])                 /* set keycode */
>>>>
>>>> As int size is 32 bits, and we must pass both 64 (or even bigger) scancodes, associated
>>>> with a keycode, there's not enough bits there for IR.
>>>>
>>>> The better approach seems to create an struct with an arbitrary long size, like:
>>>>
>>>> struct keycode_table_entry {
>>>> 	unsigned keycode;
>>>> 	char scancode[32];	/* 32 is just an arbitrary long array - maybe shorter */
>>>> 	int len;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and re-define the ioctls. For example we might be doing:
>>>>
>>>> #define EVIOCGKEYCODEBIG           _IOR('E', 0x04, struct keycode_table_entry)
>>>> #define EVIOCSKEYCODEBIG           _IOW('E', 0x04, struct keycode_table_entry)
>>>> #define EVIOCLEARKEYCODEBIG        _IOR('E', 0x04, void)
>>>>
>>>> Provided that the size for struct keycode_table_entry is different, _IO will generate
>>>> a different magic number for those.
>>>>
>>>> Or, instead of using 0x04, just use another sequential number at the 'E' namespace.
>>>>
>>>> An specific function to clear the table is needed with big scancode space,
>>>> as already discussed.
>>>>
>>> I'd suggest:
>>>
>>> struct keycode_table_entry {
>>> 	unsigned keycode;
>>> 	unsigned index;
>>> 	unsigned len;
>>> 	char scancode[];
>>> };
>>>
>>> Use index in EVIOCGKEYCODEBIG to look up a keycode (all other fields are 
>>> ignored), that way no special function to clear the table is necessary, 
>>> instead you do a loop with:
>>>
>>> EVIOCGKEYCODEBIG (with index 0)
>>> EVIOCSKEYCODEBIG (with the returned struct from EVIOCGKEYCODEBIG and
>>> 		  keycode = KEY_RESERVED)
>>>
>>> until EVIOCGKEYCODEBIG returns an error.
>> Makes sense.
> 
> Yes, I think so too. Just need a nice way to handle transition, I'd
> like in the end to have drivers implement only the improved methods and
> map legacy methods in evdev.

Ok. I'll prepare the patches for adding the new ioctl, in a way that it will
also handle the legacy methods, and post for review.

>>> On a related note, I really think the interface would benefit from 
>>> allowing more than one keytable per irrcv device with an input device 
>>> created per keytable. That way you can have one input device per remote 
>>> control. This implies that EVIOCLEARKEYCODEBIG is a bit misplaced as an 
>>> evdev IOCTL since there's an N-1 mapping between input devices and irrcv 
>>> devices.
>> I don't think that an ioctl over one /dev/input/event should be the proper way
>> to ask kernel to create another filtered /dev/input/event. As it were commented
>> that the multimedia keys on some keyboards could benefit on having a filter
>> capability, maybe we may have a sysfs node at class input that would allow
>> the creation/removal of the filtered event interface.
> 
> No, if you want separate event devices just create a new instance of
> input device for every keymap and have driver/irrcv class route events
> to proper input device.

This don't solve the issue about how to signalize to kernel that more than one
input device is needed. 

As the userspace will request the creation of those keymaps, we need some way
to receive such requests from userspace. 

I can see a few ways for doing it:

1) create a control device for the irrcv device as a hole,
that would handle such requests via ioctl (/dev/irctl[0-9]* ?)

2) create a read/write sysfs node that would indicate the number of event/keymaps
associated with a given IR. By writing a bigger number, it would create new devices.
By writing a smaller number, it will delete some maps. There's an issue though: 
what criteria would be used to delete? The newly created ones?

3) create a fixed number of event devices, and add a sysfs attribute to enable
or disable it;

4) create a fixed number of sysfs attributes to represent the keymaps. For example:
/sys/class/irrcv/irrcv0/keymap0/enabled
	...
/sys/class/irrcv/irrcv0/keymap7/enabled

The input/event node will be created only when the enabled=1.

I don't like (2) or (3), because removing a table with (2) may end by removing the wrong
table, and (3) will create more event interfaces than probably needed by the majority
of IR users.

maybe (4) is the better one.

-- 

Cheers,
Mauro
--
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