From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR  system?
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:29:37 -0800
Message-ID: <83224BA3-A5FF-4525-BF20-16A60F865C0A@gmail.com>
References: <m3r5riy7py.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> <BDkdITRHqgB@lirc> <9e4733910911280906if1191a1jd3d055e8b781e45c@mail.gmail.com> <m3aay6y2m1.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> <9e4733910911280937k37551b38g90f4a60b73665853@mail.gmail.com> <1259450815.3137.19.camel@palomino.walls.org> <m3ocml6ppt.fsf@intrepid.localdomain> <9e4733910911291244p364b328fm3a76ded4e4cd8603@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPhone Mail 7C144)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii;
	format=flowed;
	delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pz0-f171.google.com ([209.85.222.171]:42397 "EHLO
	mail-pz0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752294AbZK2V3p (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-input@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:29:45 -0500
In-Reply-To: <9e4733910911291244p364b328fm3a76ded4e4cd8603@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
To: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>, Andy Walls <awalls@radix.net>, Christoph Bartelmus <lirc@bartelmus.de>, "j@jannau.net" <j@jannau.net>, "jarod@redhat.com" <jarod@redhat.com>, "jarod@wilsonet.com" <jarod@wilsonet.com>, "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>, "maximlevitsky@gmail.com" <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>, "mchehab@redhat.com" <mchehab@redhat.com>, "stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de" <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>, "superm1@ubuntu.com" <superm1@ubuntu.com>

On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl>  
> wrote:
>> 1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed  
>> at
>>   least?
>>
>> 2. Is there any problem with lirc kernel-user interface?
>
> Can you consider sending the raw IR data as a new evdev message type
> instead of creating a new device protocol?

No, I think it would be wrong. Such events are ill-suited for  
consumption by regular applications and would introduce the "looping"  
interface I described in my other email.

> evdev protects the messages in a transaction to stop incomplete
> messages from being read.

If such property is desired we can add it to the new lirc-like  
interface, can't we?

-- 
>
Dmitry