On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:04:30PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> On 12/2/09 12:30 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > >>>>>> (for each remote/substream that they can recognize). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm assuming that, by remote, you're referring to a remote receiver (and not to > >>>>>>> the remote itself), right? > >>>>> > >>>>> If we could separate by remote transmitter that would be the best I > >>>>> think, but I understand that it is rarely possible? > >>> > >>> The code I posted using configfs did that. Instead of making apps IR > >>> aware it mapped the vendor/device/command triplets into standard Linux > >>> keycodes. Each remote was its own evdev device. > >> > >> Note, of course, that you can only do that iff each remote uses distinct > >> triplets. A good portion of mythtv users use a universal of some sort, > >> programmed to emulate another remote, such as the mce remote bundled > >> with mceusb transceivers, or the imon remote bundled with most imon > >> receivers. I do just that myself. > >> > >> Personally, I've always considered the driver/interface to be the > >> receiver, not the remote. The lirc drivers operate at the receiver > >> level, anyway, and the distinction between different remotes is made by > >> the lirc daemon. > > > > The fact that lirc does it this way does not necessarily mean it is the > > most corerct way. > > No, I know that, I'm just saying that's how I've always looked at it, and that's how lirc does it right now, not that it must be that way. > > > Do you expect all bluetooth input devices be presented > > as a single blob just because they happen to talk to the sane receiver > > in yoru laptop? Do you expect your USB mouse and keyboard be merged > > together just because they end up being serviced by the same host > > controller? If not why remotes should be any different? > > A bluetooth remote has a specific device ID that the receiver has to > pair with. Your usb mouse and keyboard each have specific device IDs. > A usb IR *receiver* has a specific device ID, the remotes do not. So > there's the major difference from your examples. > Not exactly... I can have 2 identical USB keyboadrs form the same manufacturer and they will still be treated separately. BT has session ID to help distinguish between devices. > > Now I understand that if 2 remotes send completely identical signals we > > won't be able to separete them, but in cases when we can I think we > > should. > > I don't have a problem with that, if its a truly desired feature. But > for the most part, I don't see the point. Generally, you go from > having multiple remotes, one per device (where "device" is your TV, > amplifier, set top box, htpc, etc), to having a single universal > remote that controls all of those devices. But for each device (IR > receiver), *one* IR command set. The desire to use multiple distinct > remotes with a single IR receiver doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps > I'm just not creative enough in my use of IR. :) Didn't Jon posted his example whith programmable remote pretending to be several separate remotes (depending on the mode of operation) so that several devices/applications can be controlled without interfering with each other? -- Dmitry -- 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
