On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:05:49PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:00:40PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:29:44PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> >>>> For sure we need to add an EVIOSETPROTO ioctl to allow the driver >> >>>> to change the protocol in runtime. >> >>>> >> >>> Mauro, >> >>> >> >>> I think this kind of confuguration belongs to lirc device space, >> >>> not input/evdev. This is the same as protocol selection for psmouse >> >>> module: while it is normally auto-detected we have sysfs attribute to >> >>> force one or another and it is tied to serio device, not input >> >>> device. >> >> Dmitry, >> >> >> >> This has nothing to do with the raw interface nor with lirc. This problem >> >> happens with the evdev interface and already affects the in-kernel drivers. >> >> >> >> In this case, psmouse is not a good example. With a mouse, when a movement >> >> occurs, you'll receive some data from its port. So, a software can autodetect >> >> the protocol. The same principle can be used also with a raw pulse/space >> >> interface, where software can autodetect the protocol. >> > >> > Or, in certain cases, it can not. >> > >> > [... skipped rationale for adding a way to control protocol (with which >> > I agree) ...] >> > >> >> To solve this, we really need to extend evdev API to do 3 things: enumberate the >> >> supported protocols, get the current protocol(s), and select the protocol(s) that >> >> will be used by a newer table. >> >> >> > >> > And here we start disagreeing. My preference would be for adding this >> > API on lirc device level (i.e. /syc/class/lirc/lircX/blah namespace), >> > since it only applicable to IR, not to input devices in general. >> > >> > Once you selected proper protocol(s) and maybe instantiated several >> > input devices then udev (by examining input device capabilities and >> > optionally looking up at the parent device properties) would use >> > input evdev API to load proper keymap. Because translation of >> > driver-specific codes into standard key definitions is in the input >> > realm. Reading these driver-specific codes from hardware is outside of >> > input layer domain. >> > >> > Just as psmouse ability to specify protocol is not shoved into evdev; >> > just as atkbd quirks (force release key list and other driver-specific >> > options) are not in evdev either; we should not overload evdev interface >> > with IR-specific items. >> >> I'm not against mapping those features as sysfs atributes, but they don't belong >> to lirc, as far as I understand. From all we've discussed, we'll create a lirc >> interface to allow the direct usage of raw IO. However, IR protocol is a property >> that is not related to raw IO mode but, instead, to evdev mode. >> > > Why would protocol relate to evdev node? Evdev does not really care what > how the fact that a certain button was pressed was communicated to it. > It may be deliveretd through PS/2 port, or maybe it was Bluetooth HID, > or USB HID or USB boot protocol or some custom protocol, or RC-5, NEC or > some custom IR protocol. It makes no difference _whatsoever_ to evdev > nor any users of evdev care about protocol used by underlying hardware > device to transmit the data. > >> We might add a /sys/class/IR and add IR specific stuff there, but it seems >> overkill to me and will hide the fact that those parameters are part of the evdev >> interface. >> >> So, I would just add the IR sysfs parameters at the /sys/class/input, if >> the device is an IR (or create it is /sys/class/input/IR). >> >> I agree that the code to implement the IR specific sysfs parameter should be kept >> oustide input core, as they're specific to IR implementations. >> >> Would this work for you? > > I am seeing a little bit differently structured subsystem for IR at the > moment. I think we should do something like this: > > - receivers create /sys/class/lirc devices. These devices provide API > with a ring buffer (fifo) for the raw data stream coming from (and to) > them. The FIFO will have to appear as a /dev/device or be in debugfs. GregKH sent earlier mail telling me to get the FIFO out of sysfs. > - we allow registering several data interfaces/decoders that can be bound > (manually or maybe automatically) to lirc devices. lirc devices may > provide hints as to which interface(s) better suited for handling the > data coming form particular receiver. Several interfaces may be bound > to one device at a time. > - one of the interfaces is interface implementing current lirc_dev > - other interfaces may be in-kernel RC-5 decoder or other decoders. > decoders will create instances of input devices (for each > remote/substream that they can recognize). This includes defining IR events for evdev with vendor/device/command triplets? You need those standard events to make apps IR aware. LIRC will also need to inject those events after decoding pulse data. > > This way there is clear layering, protocol selection is kept at lirc > level. Did you checkout capabilities bits in evdev? > > Would this work? > > -- > Dmitry > -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
