Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?

Jon Smirl
2009-11-29T21:47:13Z

On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Regular applications are going to ignore these messages. The only
consumer for them is the LIRC daemon. Which is just going to process
them and re-inject the events back into evdev again in a different
form.

IR is an input device, what make it so special that it needs to by
pass this subsystem and implement its own private communications
scheme?

>> 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?

Why do you want to redesign evdev instead of using it?

>
> --
>>
> Dmitry
>

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com