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

Christoph Bartelmus
2009-11-29T12:07:01Z

Hi Jon,

on 27 Nov 09 at 12:49, Jon Smirl wrote:
[...]
> Christoph, take what you know from all of the years of working on LIRC
> and design the perfect in-kernel system. This is the big chance to
> redesign IR support and get rid of any past mistakes. Incorporate any
> useful chunks of code and knowledge from the existing LIRC into the
> new design. Drop legacy APIs, get rid of daemons, etc. You can do this
> redesign in parallel with existing LIRC. Everyone can continue using
> the existing code while the new scheme is being built. Think of it as
> LIRC 2.0. You can lead this design effort, you're the most experience
> developer in the IR area.

This is a very difficult thing for me to do. I must admit that I'm very
biased.
Because lircd is the only userspace application that uses the LIRC kernel
interface, we never had any problems changing the interface when needed.
I can't say there's much legacy stuff inside. I'm quite happy with the
interface.
The other thing is that I can't really move the decoder from userspace to
kernel because there are way too many userspace drivers that do require a
userspace decoder. LIRC also is running on FreeBSD, MacOS and even Cygwin.
So letting the userspace drivers take advantage of a potential Linux in-
kernel decoder is not an option for me either.
I'm having my 'LIRC maintainer' hat on mostly during this discussion and I
do understand that from Linux kernel perspective things look different.

> Take advantage of this window to make a
> design that is fully integrated with Linux - put IR on equal footing
> with the keyboard and mouse as it should be.

That's a question that I have not answered for myself concludingly.
Is a remote control really on exactly the same level as a keyboard or
mouse?

Christoph