Krzysztof Halasa wrote: > Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> If you see patch 3/3, of the lirc submission series, you'll notice a driver >> that has hardware decoding, but, due to lirc interface, the driver generates >> pseudo pulse/space code for it to work via lirc interface. > > IOW the driver generates artificial pulse code for lircd? > I think - pure bloat. lircd can get events from input layer without > problems. Perhaps I misunderstood? lircd supports input layer interface. Yet, patch 3/3 exports both devices that support only pulse/space raw mode and devices that generate scan codes via the raw mode interface. It does it by generating artificial pulse codes. > >> It is very bad to have two interfaces for the same thing, because people >> may do things like that. > > I think having a "raw" scan code interface + the key code "cooked" mode > is beneficial. For remotes lacking the raw interface only the latter > could be used. It sounds an interesting idea. >> Are you meaning that we should do more than one RC per input event >> interface? > > I think so. Why not? > > For example, one of my remotes generates codes from at least two RC5 > groups (in only one "mode"). Currently a remote is limited to only one > RC5 group. Yet, both are RC5. This can already be handled by the input layer. See dvb-usb implementation. The issue I see is to support at the same time NEC and RC5 protocols. While this may work with some devices, for others, the hardware won't allow. > > I think the mapping should be: key = proto + group + raw code, while > key2 could be different_proto + different group (if any) + another code. This may work for protocols up to RC5, that uses either 8 or 16 bits. However, RC6 mode 6 codes can be 32 bits, and we have "only" 32 bits for a scancode. So, we don't have spare bits to represent a protocol, if we consider RC6 mode 6 codes as well. >> If so, why do you think we need to handle more than one IR protocol at >> the same time? > > Why not? > There are X-in-1 remotes on the market for years. They can "speak" many > protocols at once. One may want to have a protocol to handle DVD apps > while another for DVB etc. > And someone may want to use several different remotes, why not? > Personally I use two different remotes (both set to speak RC5 but what > if I couldn't set the protocol?). Sure, it requires a bit of hackery > (not with pulse code and lircd). > >> I think this will just make the driver more complex without need. > > Not much more, and there is a need. See above. Also, several protocols have a way to check if a keystroke were properly received. When handling just one protocol, we can use this to double check the key. However, on a multiprotocol mode, we'll need to disable this feature. PS.: For those following those discussions that want to know more about IR protocols, a good reference is at: http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/ir.htm Unfortunately, it doesn't describe RC6 mode 6. Cheers, Mauro. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
