Jon Smirl wrote: > Some major use cases: > using IR as a keyboard replacement, controlling X and apps with it in > via mouse and keyboard emulation. > using IR to control a headless embedded device possibly running > multiple apps - like audio and home automation (my app) > IR during boot when it is the only input device the box has. > multifunction remote controlling several apps > using several different remotes to control a single app I think you reasonably described the major usecases. >>> If everyone hates configfs the same mapping can be done via the set >>> keys IOCTL and making changes to the user space apps like loadkeys. >>> >> It is not the hate of configfs per se, but rather concern that configfs >> takes too much resources and is not normally enabled. > > It adds about 35K on 64b x86. 30K on 32b powerpc. If it gets turned on > by default other subsystems might start using it too. I work on an > embedded system. These arguments about non-swapable vs swapable are > pointless. Embedded systems don't have swap devices. > Of course config can be eliminated by modifying the setkeys IOCTL and > user space tools. It will require some more mods to input to allow > multiple maps monitoring the input stream and splitting them onto > multiple evdev devices. This is an equally valid way of building the > maps. > > The code I posted is just demo code. It is clearly not in shape to be > merged. Its purpose was to spark a design discussion around creating a > good long-term architecture for IR. Unfortunately, afaik, most distros don't enable configfs yet. I have to manually compile my kernel when I need some useful stuff there. I agree with Dmitry: IR is probably not enough to have this enabled by default on distros. I prefer a more traditional approach like ioctls (and/or sysfs) instead of configfs. 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
