From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: <4B14E747.9060208@redhat.com> References: <4B13BBBE.3010101@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47639 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753735AbZLAJwb (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2009 04:52:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B13BBBE.3010101@redhat.com> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Cc: Christoph Bartelmus , awalls@radix.net, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, jonsmirl@gmail.com, khc@pm.waw.pl, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, superm1@ubuntu.com On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Christoph Bartelmus wrote: >> Hi Mauro, >> >> I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be >> also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage >> than using more recent kernel features. > > I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is: > 1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface; Use lirc for raw samples. Use evdev for decoded data. Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces. IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input layer. It looks more like a serial line than a input device. In fact you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times. > 2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long > time. It isn't like lirc is a new interface. It has been used in practice for years. I don't think API stability is a problem here. > True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will > still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's > that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due > to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc. I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission? cheers, Gerd