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 -- 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
