On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:25:49 pm Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 01:17:03PM +1030, Mike Lampard wrote: > > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 02:27:59 am Jon Smirl wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Christoph Bartelmus > > > > > > <christoph@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Mauro, > > > > > > > > on 26 Nov 09 at 14:25, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > >> Christoph Bartelmus wrote: > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > >>> But I'm still a bit hesitant about the in-kernel decoding. Maybe > > > >>> it's just because I'm not familiar at all with input layer toolset. > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > >> I hope it helps for you to better understand how this works. > > > > > > > > So the plan is to have two ways of using IR in the future which are > > > > incompatible to each other, the feature-set of one being a subset of > > > > the other? > > > > > > Take advantage of the fact that we don't have a twenty year old legacy > > > API already in the kernel. Design an IR API that uses current kernel > > > systems. Christoph, ignore the code I wrote and make a design proposal > > > that addresses these goals... > > > > > > 1) Unified input in Linux using evdev. IR is on equal footing with > > > mouse and keyboard. > > > > I think this a case where automating setup can be over-emphasised (in the > > remote-as-keyboard case). > > > > Apologies in advance if I've misunderstood the idea of utilising the > > 'input subsystem' for IR. If the plan is to offer dedicated IR events > > via a yet-to- be-announced input event subsystem and to optionally > > disallow acting as a keyboard via a module option or similar then please > > ignore the following. > > > > Whilst having remotes come through the input subsystem might be 'the > > correct thing' from a purely technical standpoint, as an end-user I find > > the use-case for remotes completely different in one key aspect: > > Keyboards and mice are generally foreground-app input devices, whereas > > remotes are often controlling daemons sitting in the background piping > > media through dedicated devices. As an example I have a VDR instance > > running in the background on my desktop machine outputting to a TV in > > another room via a pci mpeg decoder - I certainly don't want the VDR > > remote control interacting with my X11 desktop in any way unless I go out > > of my way to set it up to do so, nor do I want it interacting with other > > applications (such as MPD piping music around the house) that are > > controlled via other remotes in other rooms unless specified. > > > > Setting this up with Lircd was easy, how would a kernel-based proposal > > handle this? > > Why would that be different really? On my keyboard there is a key for > e-mail application (and many others) - what HID calls Application Launch > keys IIRC. There also application control keys and system control keys, > KEY_COFFEE aka KEY_SCREENLOCK. Those are not to be consumed by > foreground application but by daemons/session-wide application. > In my real-world examples above, both VDR and MPD are started at system start and are not associated with any user-initiated sessions (X login etc) - they are not X11 clients. Their only input is via Lircd. Conversely todays Xserver (if I read my logfiles correctly) consumes all input event devices by default, turning them into keypresses for its client apps. This is exactly the wrong behaviour for my use-case. In order to ensure that my daemons receive their input I must first ensure that X doesn't receive those events - assuming this is possible it still complicates matters further than they are today (I'd need a simple way of automatically differentiating between remote devices and keyboard devices) . Mike -- 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
