Em 28-07-2010 07:40, Jon Smirl escreveu: > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 22:33 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> No its not, its just extended NEC. > > http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/nec.htm > Says the last two bytes should be the complement of each other. > > So for extended NEC it would need to be: > 1100 0010 1010 0101 instead of 1100 0010 1010 0100 > The last bit is wrong. > > From the debug output it is decoding as NEC, but then it fails a > consistency check. Maybe we need to add a new protocol that lets NEC > commands through even if they fail the error checks. Assuming that Maxim's IR receiver is not causing some bad decode at the NEC code, it seems simpler to add a parameter at sysfs to relax the NEC detection. We should add some way, at the userspace table for those RC's that uses a NEC-like code. There's another alternative: currently, the NEC decoder produces a 16 bits code for NEC and a 24 bits for NEC-extended code. The decoder may return a 32 bits code when none of the checksum's match the NEC or NEC-extended standard. Such 32 bits code won't match a keycode on a 16-bits or 24-bits table, so there's no risk of generating a wrong keycode, if the wrong consistent check is due to a reception error. Btw, we still need to port rc core to use the new tables ioctl's, as cleaning all keycodes on a 32 bits table would take forever with the current input events ioctls. > It may also be > that the NEC machine rejected it because the timing was so far off > that it concluded that it couldn't be a NEC messages. The log didn't > include the exact reason it got rejected. Add some printks at the end > of the NEC machine to determine the exact reason for rejection. The better is to discard the possibility of a timing issue before changing the decoder to accept NEC-like codes without consistency checks. > The current state machines enforce protocol compliance so there are > probably a lot of older remotes that won't decode right. We can use > some help in adjusting the state machines to let out of spec codes > through. Yes, but we should take some care to avoid having another protocol decoder to interpret badly a different protocol. So, I think that the decoders may have some sysfs nodes to tweak the decoders to accept those older remotes. We'll need a consistent way to add some logic at the remotes keycodes used by ir-keycode, in order to allow it to tweak the decoder when a keycode table for such remote is loaded into the driver. > User space lirc is much older. Bugs like this have been worked out of > it. It will take some time to get the kernel implementation up to the > same level. True. 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
