Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:04:30PM -0500, Jarod Wilson 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.
> 

Not exactly... I can have 2 identical USB keyboadrs form the same
manufacturer and they will still be treated separately. BT has session
ID to help distinguish between devices.

> > Now I understand that if 2 remotes send completely identical signals we
> > won't be able to separete 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. :)

Didn't Jon posted his example whith programmable remote pretending to be
several separate remotes (depending on the mode of operation) so that
several devices/applications can be controlled without interfering with
each other?

-- 
Dmitry