From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? Date: Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:46:45 -0200 Message-ID: <4B1B99A5.2080903@redhat.com> References: <20091204220708.GD25669@core.coreip.homeip.net> <9e4733910912041628g5bedc9d2jbee3b0861aeb5511@mail.gmail.com> <1260070593.3236.6.camel@pc07.localdom.local> <20091206065512.GA14651@core.coreip.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46010 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933721AbZLFLq4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Dec 2009 06:46:56 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091206065512.GA14651@core.coreip.homeip.net> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: hermann pitton , Jon Smirl , Christoph Bartelmus , awalls@radix.net, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, khc@pm.waw.pl, kraxel@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, superm1@ubuntu.com Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 04:36:33AM +0100, hermann pitton wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Am Freitag, den 04.12.2009, 19:28 -0500 schrieb Jon Smirl: >>> On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Christoph Bartelmus wrote: >>>> BTW, I just came across a XMP remote that seems to generate 3x64 bit scan >>>> codes. Anyone here has docs on the XMP protocol? >>> Assuming a general purpose receiver (not one with fixed hardware >>> decoding), is it important for Linux to receive IR signals from all >>> possible remotes no matter how old or obscure? Or is it acceptable to >>> tell the user to throw away their dedicated remote and buy a universal >>> multi-function one? Universal multi-function remotes are $12 in my >>> grocery store - I don't even have to go to an electronics store. >> finally we have some point here, IMHO, that is not acceptable and I told >> you previously not to bet on such. Start some poll and win it, and I'll >> shut up :) >> > > Who would participate in the poll though? > >> To be frank, you are quite mad at this point, or deliver working other >> remotes to __all__ for free. >> > > I do not believe you are being realistic. Sometimes we just need to say > that the device is a POS and is just not worth it. Remember, there is > still "lirc hole" for the hard core people still using solder to produce > something out of the spare electronic components that may be made to > work (never mind that it causes the CPU constantly poll the device, not > letting it sleep and wasting electricity as a result - just hypotetical > example here). > > We still need to do cost-benefit analysis and decide whether supporting > the exotic setups _in kernel_ makes sense if it encumbers implementation > and causes issues to the other 95% people. Fully agreed. The costs (our time) to add and keep supporting an in-kernel driver for an IR that just one person is still using is higher than asking the user to get a new IR. This time would be better spent adding a new driver for other devices. Cheers, Mauro.