On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:57 -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:04:47PM +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > >> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 21:35 +0200, Christoph Bartelmus wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > Maxim Levitsky "maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx" wrote: > >> > [...] > >> > >>>>> Could you explain exactly how timeout reports work? > >> > [...] > >> > >>> So, timeout report is just another sample, with a mark attached, that > >> > >>> this is last sample? right? > >> > >> > >> > >> No, a timeout report is just an additional hint for the decoder that a > >> > >> specific amount of time has passed since the last pulse _now_. > >> > >> > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> In that case, lets do that this way: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As soon as timeout is reached, I just send lirc the timeout report. > >> > >>> Then next keypress will start with pulse. > >> > >> > >> > >> When timeout reports are enabled the sequence must be: > >> > >> <pulse> <timeout> <space> <pulse> > >> > >> where <timeout> is optional. > >> > >> > >> > >> lircd will not work when you leave out the space. It must know the exact > >> > >> time between the pulses. Some hardware generates timeout reports that are > >> > >> too short to distinguish between spaces that are so short that the next > >> > >> sequence can be interpreted as a repeat or longer spaces which indicate > >> > >> that this is a new key press. > >> > > >> > > Let me give an example to see if I got that right. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Suppose we have this sequence of reports from the driver: > >> > > > >> > > 500 (pulse) > >> > > 200000 (timeout) > >> > > 100000000 (space) > >> > > 500 (pulse) > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Is that correct that time between first and second pulse is > >> > > '100200000' ? > >> > > >> > No, it's 100000000. The timeout is optional and just a hint to the decoder > >> > how much time has passed already since the last pulse. It does not change > >> > the meaning of the next space. > >> > >> its like a carrier report then I guess. > >> Its clear to me now. > >> > >> So, I really don't need to send/support timeout reports because hw > >> doesn't support that. > >> > >> I can however support timeout (LIRC_SET_REC_TIMEOUT) and and use it to > >> adjust threshold upon which I stop the hardware, and remember current > >> time. > >> I can put that in generic function for ene like hardware > >> (hw that sends small packs of samples very often) > > > > So... I presume this means a v3 patchset? And/or, is it worth merging > > patches 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 now, then having you work on top of that? > > This branch is a as-of-a-few-minutes-ago, up-to-date linuxtv > staging/other plus a few outstanding patches and your patches 1, 2, 3, > 6 and 7: I am surely send V3 and likely V4. I changed many of my patches, I now am chasing a very strange leak of samples I see. (sometimes, randomaly a sample goes missing, and that breaks in-kernel decoding...) It appears to be not my driver fault, nor fifo overflow... Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- 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
