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

Pavel Machek
2009-12-15T20:33:09Z

On Tue 2009-12-15 15:29:51, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > On Tue 2009-12-15 15:14:02, Jon Smirl wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz> wrote:
> >> > Hi!
> >> >
> >> >>       (11) if none is against renaming IR as RC, I'll do it on a next patch;
> >> >
> >> > Call it irc -- infrared remote control. Bluetooth remote controls will
> >> > have very different characteristics.
> >>
> >> How are they different after the scancode is extracted from the
> >> network packet? The scancode still needs to be passed to the input
> >> system, go through a keymap, and end up on an evdev device.
> >>
> >> I would expect the code for extracting the scancode to live in the
> >> networking stack, but after it is recovered the networking code would
> >> use the same API as IR to submit it to input.
> >
> > For one thing,  bluetooth (etc) has concept of devices (and reliable
> > transfer). If you have two same bluetooth remotes, you can tell them
> > apart, unlike IR.
>
> IR has the same concept of devices. That's what those codes you enter
> into a universal remote do - they set the device.

They set the device _model_.

> There are three classes of remotes..
> Fixed function - the device is hardwired
> Universal - you can change the device
> Multi-function - a universal that can be multiple devices - TV, cable,
> audio, etc
>
> If you set two Bluetooth remotes both to the same device you can't
> tell them apart either.

Untrue. Like ethernets and wifis, bluetooth devices have unique
addresses. Communication is bidirectional.

Imagine wifi connected bluetooth. It is very different from infrared.

--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html