From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Smirl Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:44:36 -0500 Message-ID: <9e4733910911291244p364b328fm3a76ded4e4cd8603@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e4733910911280906if1191a1jd3d055e8b781e45c@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910911280937k37551b38g90f4a60b73665853@mail.gmail.com> <1259450815.3137.19.camel@palomino.walls.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com ([74.125.92.25]:5614 "EHLO qw-out-2122.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752872AbZK2Uoe convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:44:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Krzysztof Halasa Cc: Andy Walls , Christoph Bartelmus , dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, mchehab@redhat.com, stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de, superm1@ubuntu.com On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote= : > 1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed a= t > =A0 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? evdev protects the messages in a transaction to stop incomplete messages from being read. You might also want to use evdev capabilities to describe what the hardware can do. These were the capabilities I had made up: #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_BASEBAND 0 #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_36K 1 #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_38K 2 #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_40K 3 #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_56K 4 #define IR_CAP_SEND_BASEBAND 5 #define IR_CAP_SEND_36K 6 #define IR_CAP_SEND_38K 7 #define IR_CAP_SEND_40K 8 #define IR_CAP_SEND_56K 9 #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_1 10 #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_2 11 #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_3 12 #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_4 13 #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_RAW 14 #define IR_CAP_SEND_RAW 15 > If the answer for #1 is "yes" and for #2 is "no" then perhaps we merg= e > the Jarod's lirc patches (at least the core) so at least the > non-controversial part is done? > > Doing so doesn't block improving input layer IR interface, does it? > -- > Krzysztof Halasa > --=20 Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html