On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab >> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Jon Smirl wrote: >>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab >>>> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> Jon Smirl wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Andy Walls <awalls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 2009-12-07 at 20:22 -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 07, 2009 at 09:42:22PM -0500, Andy Walls wrote: >>>>>>>>> So I'll whip up an RC-6 Mode 6A decoder for cx23885-input.c before the >>>>>>>>> end of the month. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can setup the CX2388[58] hardware to look for both RC-5 and RC-6 with >>>>>>>>> a common set of parameters, so I may be able to set up the decoders to >>>>>>>>> handle decoding from two different remote types at once. The HVR boards >>>>>>>>> can ship with either type of remote AFAIK. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wonder if I can flip the keytables on the fly or if I have to create >>>>>>>>> two different input devices? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you distinguish between the 2 remotes (not receivers)? >>>>>>> Yes. RC-6 and RC-5 are different enough to distinguish between the two. >>>>>>> (Honestly I could pile on more protocols that have similar pulse time >>>>>>> periods, but that's complexity for no good reason and I don't know of a >>>>>>> vendor that bundles 3 types of remotes per TV card.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Like I said, >>>>>>>> I think the preferred way is to represent every remote that can be >>>>>>>> distinguished from each other as a separate input device. >>>>>>> OK. With RC-5, NEC, and RC-6 at least there is also an address or >>>>>>> system byte or word to distingish different remotes. However creating >>>>>>> multiple input devices on the fly for detected remotes would be madness >>>>>>> - especially with a decoding error in the address bits. >>>>>> I agree that creating devices on the fly has problems. Another >>>>>> solution is to create one device for each map that is loaded. There >>>>>> would be a couple built-in maps for bundled remotes - each would >>>>>> create a device. Then the user could load more maps with each map >>>>>> creating a device. >>>>> No, please. We currently have already 89 different keymaps in-kernel. Creating >>>>> 89 different interfaces per IR receiver is not useful at all. >>>>> >>>>> IMO, the interfaces should be created as the keymaps are associated >>>>> to an specific IR receiver. >>>> Each IR receiver device driver would have a built-in keymap for the >>>> remote bundled with it. When you load the driver it will poke the >>>> input system and install the map. Any additional keymaps would get >>>> loaded from user space. You would load one keymap per input device. >>>> >>>> You might have 89 maps in the kernel with each map being built into >>>> the device driver for those 89 IR receivers. But you'll only own one >>>> or two of those devices so only one or two of the 89 maps will load. >>>> Building the map for the bundled receiver into the device driver is an >>>> important part of achieving "just works". >>>> >>>> I suspect we'll have a 1,000 maps defined after ten years, most of >>>> these maps will be loaded from user space. But you'll only have two or >>>> three loaded at any one time into your kernel. You need one map per >>>> input device created. These maps are tiny, less than 1KB. >>>> >>>> Having all of these maps is the price of allowing everyone to use any >>>> more that they please. If you force the use of universal remotes most >>>> of the maps can be eliminated. >>> Makes sense. Yet, I would add an option at Kbuild to create a module or not >>> with the bundled IR keymaps. >>> >>> So, it should be possible to have all of them completely on userspace or >>> having them at kernelspace. >> >> Removing the maps for the bundled remotes from the receiver device >> drivers will break "just works". > > No. This can be provided by an udev application that will load the keytable > when the device is connected. Why do you want to pull the 1KB default mapping table out of the device driver __init section and more it to a udev script? Now we will have to maintain a parallel udev script for ever receiver's device driver. The purpose of putting this table into __init is to get rid of all these udev scripts in the default case. > > Of course before adding it into a module, we'll need to write such app. > > This will only affects the need of IR during boot time. > >> The map will be in an __init section >> of the IR device driver. When it is fed into the input system a RAM >> based structure will be created. > > We can't use __init, since another device needing the keymap may be hot-plugged. You can handle that with __devinit >> If you really want the 1KB memory >> back, use sysfs to remove the default map. An embedded system will >> have a bundled remote so it is going to want the map. > > Yes, but it needs just one map, not all of them. The maps shouldn't be linked > into the drivers, as the same map is used by several different devices on Link them or #include them, it doesn't make any difference. > different drivers. So, the option is to allow customizing the available keymaps, > if CONFIG_EMBEDDED. > > Cheers, > Mauro. > -- 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
