On 11/23/2009 12:37 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:14:56PM +0100, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Mauro Carvalho Chehab<mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Event input has the advantage that the keystrokes will provide an unique
representation that is independent of the device.
This can hardly work as the only means, the remotes have different keys,
the user almost always has to provide customized key<>function mapping.
Is it true? I would expect the remotes to have most of the keys to have
well-defined meanings (unless it is one of the programmable remotes)...
Its the cases like programmable universal remotes that really throw
things for a loop. That, and people wanting to use random remote X that
came with the amp or tv or set top box, with IR receiver Y.
...
We need to handle more than one RC at a time, of course.
So, the basic question that should be decided is: should we create a new
userspace API for raw IR pulse/space
I think so, doing the RCx proto handling in the kernel (but without
RCx raw code<> key mapping in this case due to multiple controllers
etc.). Though it could probably use the input layer as well(?).
I think if the data is used to do the primary protocol decoding then it
should be a separate interface that is processed by someone and then fed
into input subsystem (either in-kernel or through uinput).
Again, I would prefer to keep EV_KEY/KEY_* as the primary event type for
keys and buttons on all devices.
Current lircd actually inter-operates with the input subsystem quite
well for any and all supported remotes if their keys are mapped in their
respective lircd.conf file using standard input subsystem key names, and
the lirc daemon started with the --uinput param. lircd decodes the raw
IR, finds the mapping in its config, and happily passes it along to uinput.
--
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
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
