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

Jon Smirl
2009-11-29T20:44:34Z

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?
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 merge
> 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
>

--
Jon Smirl
jonsmirl@gmail.com