From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lirc@bartelmus.de (Christoph Bartelmus) Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? Date: 08 Dec 2009 23:27:00 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20091207075100.GB24958@core.coreip.homeip.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20091207075100.GB24958@core.coreip.homeip.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com Cc: awalls@radix.net, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, jonsmirl@gmail.com, khc@pm.waw.pl, kraxel@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@redhat.com, superm1@ubuntu.com List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Hi Dmitry, on 06 Dec 09 at 23:51, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: [...] >>> I suppose we could add MSC_SCAN_END event so that we can transmit >>> "scancodes" of arbitrary length. You'd get several MSC_SCAN followed by >>> MSC_SCAN_END marker. If you don't get MSC_SCAN_END assume the code is 32 >>> bit. >> >> And I set a timeout to know that no MSC_SCAN_END will arrive? This is >> broken design IMHO. >> > EV_SYN signals the end of state transmission. >> Furthermore lircd needs to know the length of the scan code in bits, not >> as a multiple of 32. > I really do not think that LIRCD is the type of application that should > be using evdev interface, but rather other way around. Well, all I'm asking is that lircd can keep using the LIRC interface for getting the scan codes. ;-) Christoph