Em Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:41:22 -0400 Andy Walls <awalls@xxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, 2009-08-27 at 18:06 -0400, Devin Heitmueller wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mauro Carvalho > > Chehab<mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Em Thu, 27 Aug 2009 21:36:36 +0300 > > > Ville Syrjälä <syrjala@xxxxxx> escreveu: > > > Since we're on the topic of IR support, there are probably a couple of > > other things we may want to be thinking about if we plan on > > refactoring the API at all: > > > > 1. The fact that for RC5 remote controls, the tables in ir-keymaps.c > > only have the second byte. In theory, they should have both bytes > > since the vendor byte helps prevents receiving spurious commands from > > unrelated remote controls. We should include the ability to "ignore > > the vendor byte" so we can continue to support all the remotes > > currently in the ir-keymaps.c where we don't know what the vendor byte > > should contain. > > Since I uncovered this in my research, I thought I'd share... > > RC-6A has a third (or thrid and fouth) byte: > > http://www.picbasic.nl/frameload_uk.htm?http://www.picbasic.nl/info_rc6_uk.htm > > for the "Customer Identifier". > > It appears that the mode bits in the header determine if RC-6 (mode 0) > or RC-6A is in use. The position of the mode bits in the header are > documented here: > > http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/rc6.htm > > I'm guesing some MCE remotes use RC-6A. When I get CX23888 IR support > to the point of actually working, I'll check both of my MCE remotes. Andy, If you look at the get_key functions at ir-kbd-i2c, you'll see that some remotes (and/or maybe the ir decoding chip) sends code with up to 6 chars (some bits were used there for keycode sync). So, probably, there are already some rc6 IR's around. While it would theoretically be possible to still use EVIOCGKEYCODE/EVIOCSKEYCODE for handling 24 or 32 bits scan codes at the way I've proposed, I suspect that this won't scale. In order to get the current keycode table, userspace needs to do something like: for (i = 0; i <= LAST_SCANCODE; i++) ioctl(fd, EVIOCGKEYCODE, codes); On a set operation, it will do about the same loop 4 times - since internally a set operation also calls a get, and since we need first to clean the entire table before adding the new codes (so, we'll have 2^32 to 2^34 get/set operations). On my tests, with MAX_SCANCODE of 0xffff (the maximum currently supported by dvb-usb), this happens really fast. Still, this is not an efficient code, since a real table size is generally lower than 40 scancodes wide, but as keycode table load is not a frequent operation (generally, it will happen only during boot time, on a real case), I don't think we should bother with optimizing it for 2^16. I haven't tested, but I doubt that seeking for a 4 byte scancode would be fast enough, since it is a wild goose chase to seek for 40 valid codes in the middle of 2^32 to 2^34 codes, during a keycode table load/save operation. I can see a few possible solutions for it: 1) send some IR mask to the driver (or hardcode the mask) for the driver to filter just the valid the IR codes, and use a 16 bit scancode for it. This will use a strategy similar to what we currently have at ir-common, and could mean that we'll have to discuss the approach again some years later; 2) create some EVIOCGKEYCODE/EVIOCSKEYCODE variants that will be based on a sequencial index, not based on scancode. 3) create some table load/save methods at the input system, to allow changing the entire table at once, maybe using an approach similar to request_firmware. Currently, V4L drivers have their IR tables declared as: u32 ir_table[IR_KEYTAB_SIZE]; /* IR_KEYTAB_SIZE is the size of the scantable, currently 128 */ while dvb-usb (and some other DVB drivers) use: struct dvb_usb_rc_key { u8 custom,data; u32 event; }; In order to implement the second approach, the better would be to use something like: struct { be32 scancode; u32 keycode; }; It shouldn't be hard to write a few scripts for doing this conversion for both DVB and V4L type of tables. Even if we opt for a different approach, I still think that the better is to merge "custom" and "data" at scancode, since it would be easier to extend the number of bits, if later needed. Cheers, Mauro -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
