Jon Smirl wrote: > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > Actually remotes do have an ID. They all transmit vendor/device pairs > which is exactly how USB works. > Well, the description of NEC and RC5 protocol at http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/rc5.htm doesn't mention any vendor/device pair, nor I'm able to get them with the IR hardware decoders I have. Do you have any info on how they're encoded? 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
