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

Gerd Hoffmann
2009-12-01T09:52:31Z

On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Christoph Bartelmus wrote:
>> Hi Mauro,
>>
>> I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be
>> also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage
>> than using more recent kernel features.
>
> I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is:
> 1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface;

Use lirc for raw samples.
Use evdev for decoded data.

Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces.

IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input
layer. It looks more like a serial line than a input device. In fact
you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was
quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times.

> 2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long
> time.

It isn't like lirc is a new interface. It has been used in practice for
years. I don't think API stability is a problem here.

> True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will
> still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's
> that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due
> to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc.

I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission?

cheers,
Gerd