From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:17:49 -0200 Message-ID: <4B0E7FFD.10908@redhat.com> References: <1259024037.3871.36.camel@palomino.walls.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1259024037.3871.36.camel@palomino.walls.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Walls Cc: Christoph Bartelmus , khc@pm.waw.pl, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, superm1@ubuntu.com List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Andy Walls wrote: > I generally don't understand the LIRC aversion I perceive in this thread > (maybe I just have a skewed perception). > Regards, > Andy "LIRC Fan-Boy" Walls This is not a lirc love or hate thread. We're simply discussing the better API's for IR, from the technical standpoint, considering that some users may want to use lirc and some users may want to have their IR working out-of-the-box. By not using lirc, users will loose the advantages of having lircd, like clicking on a button and calling automatically the DVD player application, but this means that their device with the shipped IR will work without needing to do any setup. Whatever we do, both kind of usages should be possible, since there are demand for both. Also, the decision should consider that the existing drivers will need to support the new way without causing regressions. Cheers, Mauro.