Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2012 schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> Em 18-04-2012 11:57, Antti Palosaari escreveu:
> > I haven't tried to and not commented it. But I see clearly few problems.
> >
> > On 18.04.2012 17:17, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> >> Em 07-04-2012 14:24, Hans-Frieder Vogt escreveu:
> >>> af9035: support remote controls. Currently, for remotes using the NEC
> >>> protocol, the map of the TERRATEC_CINERGY_XS remote is loaded, for RC6
> >>> the map of RC_MAP_RC6_MCE.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hans-Frieder Vogt<hfvogt@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.c | 72
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.h | 3 +
> >>> 2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff -Nupr a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.c
> >>> b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.c ---
> >>> a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.c 2012-04-07 15:59:56.000000000
> >>> +0200 +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.c 2012-04-07
> >>> 19:17:55.044874329 +0200 @@ -313,6 +313,41 @@ static struct
> >>> i2c_algorithm af9035_i2c_a
> >>>
> >>> .functionality = af9035_i2c_functionality,
> >>>
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> +#define AF9035_POLL 250
> >>> +static int af9035_rc_query(struct dvb_usb_device *d)
> >>> +{
> >>> + unsigned int key;
> >>> + unsigned char b[4];
> >>> + int ret;
> >>> + struct usb_req req = { CMD_IR_GET, 0, 0, NULL, 4, b };
> >>> +
> >>> + if (!af9035_config.raw_ir)
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + ret = af9035_ctrl_msg(d->udev,&req);
> >>> + if (ret< 0)
> >>> + goto err;
> >>> +
> >>> + if ((b[2] + b[3]) == 0xff) {
> >>> + if ((b[0] + b[1]) == 0xff) {
> >>> + /* NEC */
> >>> + key = b[0]<< 8 | b[2];
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + /* ext. NEC */
> >>> + key = b[0]<< 16 | b[1]<< 8 | b[2];
> >>> + }
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + key = b[0]<< 24 | b[1]<< 16 | b[2]<< 8 | b[3];
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + if (d->rc_dev != NULL)
> >>> + rc_keydown(d->rc_dev, key, 0);
> >
> > Is that checking needed and why? If there is no rc_device why we even
> > call poll for it? Better to fix some core routines if that is true.
> >
> > Also rc_keydown() takes 2nd param as int, but in that case it does not
> > matter. Anyhow, 3rd param is toggle which is used by RC5/6. IIRC I have
> > never implemented RC5 or RC6 remote receiver, so I am not sure if it is
> > needed and in which case.
>
> It is better to implement the toggle, when it is available/known, as the
> core will use it to detect when the same key was pressed quickly twice, or
> if someone just kept it pressed by a long time.
>
> When this is not implemented and someone presses the same key quickly twice
> (a "double click"), the second click will be ignored, if the time is lower
> than REP_DELAY (by default, 500 ms).
The IR_GET command only delivers 4 bytes, which give no indication of a
repeated key.
>
> Not all protocols/decoders can detect it though. NEC protocol can't.
> RC-5/RC-6 can do it. Yet, not all hardware reports the toggle big on RC-5.
>
> >>> +
> >>> +err:
> >>> + /* ignore errors */
> >>> + return 0;
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>
> >>> static int af9035_init(struct dvb_usb_device *d)
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>> int ret, i;
> >>>
> >>> @@ -627,6 +662,34 @@ static int af9035_read_mac_address(struc
> >>>
> >>> for (i = 0; i< af9035_properties[0].num_adapters; i++)
> >>>
> >>> af9035_af9033_config[i].clock = clock_lut[tmp];
> >>>
> >>> + ret = af9035_rd_reg(d, EEPROM_IR_MODE,&tmp);
> >>> + if (ret< 0)
> >>> + goto err;
> >>> + pr_debug("%s: ir_mode=%02x\n", __func__, tmp);
> >>> + af9035_config.raw_ir = tmp == 5;
> >
> > This looks odd for my eyes. Maybe x = (y == z); is better. Checkpatch
> > didn't complain it?
>
> I think checkpatch will accept that. I generally prefer to use:
>
> foo = (tmp == 5) = true : false;
shouldn't it rather be
foo = (tmp == 5) ? true : false;
>
> as some source code analyzers complain about statements like the above.
>
> >>> +
> >>> + if (af9035_config.raw_ir) {
> >>> + ret = af9035_rd_reg(d, EEPROM_IR_TYPE,&tmp);
> >
> > No space between x,y, IIRC checkpatch reports that.
the only errors that checkpatch is reporting is ERROR: trailing whitespace,
but that seems to be normal for lines in the patch that are unchanged (I run
checkpatch.pl --no-tree --file ...patch).
> >
> >>> + if (ret< 0)
> >>> + goto err;
> >>> + pr_debug("%s: ir_type=%02x\n", __func__, tmp);
> >>> +
> >>> + switch (tmp) {
> >>> + case 0: /* NEC */
> >>> + default:
> >>> + af9035_config.ir_rc6 = false;
> >
> > unused variable
agreed.
> >
> >>> + d->props.rc.core.protocol = RC_TYPE_NEC;
> >>> + d->props.rc.core.rc_codes =
> >>> + RC_MAP_NEC_TERRATEC_CINERGY_XS;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + case 1: /* RC6 */
> >>> + af9035_config.ir_rc6 = true;
> >>> + d->props.rc.core.protocol = RC_TYPE_RC6;
> >>> + d->props.rc.core.rc_codes = RC_MAP_RC6_MCE;
> >>> + break;
> >>> + }
> >
> > I hate to default some random remote controller keytable. Use EMPTY map,
> > it is for that.
> >
Good idea.
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>>
> >>> return 0;
> >>>
> >>> err:
> >>> @@ -1003,6 +1066,15 @@ static struct dvb_usb_device_properties
> >>>
> >>> .i2c_algo =&af9035_i2c_algo,
> >>>
> >>> + .rc.core = {
> >>> + .protocol = RC_TYPE_NEC,
> >>> + .module_name = "af9035",
> >>> + .rc_query = af9035_rc_query,
> >>> + .rc_interval = AF9035_POLL,
> >>> + .allowed_protos = RC_TYPE_NEC | RC_TYPE_RC6,
> >
> > Does this mean we promise userspace we can do both NEC and RC6? Does it
> > mean we should offer method to change protocol in that case? I suspect
> > it is not even possible to switch from remote protocol to other unless
> > eeprom change or firmware hack.
>
> Yes, that assumes a callback to allow to switch the protocol, OR that the
> device can automatically recognize both protocols (there are a few that
> are able to handle both NEC and RC-5 or RC-6 without any specific command).
> The RC and NEC timings are very different, so, auto-detecting it is quite
> easy.
>
> If this is the case for af9035, all that it is needed test the protocol
> auto-detection is to replace the table from one protocol to the other and
> use an IR compatible with the new table.
I think the af9035 doesn't autodetect the protocol. I tested a device which is
configured for RC6 (as layed down in the eeprom) and it doesn't read any raw
code from a NEC rc.
> In the way this code was written, it leaves the reviewer without any af9035
> device to believe that auto-detection is supported by af9035 (and also
> because there's no command sent to the device in order to switch the mode).
>
> It is easy to check if the device accepts both automatically: just load
> a different table with ir-keycode and test the remote with a different
> protocol.
>
> If this is not the case, then rc.core.allowed_protocols should be equal to
> rc.core.protocol.
Thanks.
>
> >>> + .rc_codes = RC_MAP_EMPTY, /* may be changed in
> >>> + af9035_read_mac_address */
> >
> > Commented that earlier. But RC_MAP_EMPTY is correct choice for default.
> >
> >> This is just a minor thing, but the comment here seems to be outdated,
> >> as this is actually set at af9035_init().
> >>
> >>> + },
> >>>
> >>> .num_device_descs = 5,
> >>> .devices = {
> >>>
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>> diff -Nupr a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.h
> >>> b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.h ---
> >>> a/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.h 2012-04-07 15:58:43.000000000
> >>> +0200 +++ b/drivers/media/dvb/dvb-usb/af9035.h 2012-04-07
> >>> 17:35:08.517840044 +0200 @@ -49,6 +49,8 @@ struct usb_req {
> >>>
> >>> struct config {
> >>>
> >>> bool dual_mode;
> >>>
> >>> + bool raw_ir;
> >>> + bool ir_rc6;
> >
> > Both of these new configs are unused and not needed. Please do not add
> > new configuration option unless needed (to pass config data from
> > function to other inside driver).
raw_ir is indeed used (see af9035_rc_query). However I agree that I could
implement this switch in a different way without the need of an extra config
variable.
> >
> >>> bool hw_not_supported;
> >>>
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> @@ -96,6 +98,7 @@ u32 clock_lut_it9135[] = {
> >>>
> >>> #define CMD_MEM_WR 0x01
> >>> #define CMD_I2C_RD 0x02
> >>> #define CMD_I2C_WR 0x03
> >>>
> >>> +#define CMD_IR_GET 0x18
> >>>
> >>> #define CMD_FW_DL 0x21
> >>> #define CMD_FW_QUERYINFO 0x22
> >>> #define CMD_FW_BOOT 0x23
> >>>
> >>> Hans-Frieder Vogt e-mail: hfvogt<at> gmx .dot.
> >>> net
> >>
> >> Except for that minor mistake at the comment above, the rest looks fine
> >> on my eyes.
> >
> > I added some comments. And there was some basic remote controller issues
> > - I didn't checked those, but those were commented as what is my
> > understanding and some may be even wrong. In all cases please fix
> > properly or explain I was wrong.
> >
> > regards
> > Antti
Thanks, Mauro and Antti, for your comments. Expect an improved patch soon.
Cheers,
Hans-Frieder
Hans-Frieder Vogt e-mail: hfvogt <at> gmx .dot. net
--
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
