Em 18-04-2012 17:42, Hans-Frieder Vogt escreveu: > 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; Yes. >> >> 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). Use checkpatch for your patch, not for the file. Unfortunately, when there are function parameters are all upercase, checkpatch.pl doesn't work well. Once I complained, it was said this is a feature, in order to avoid some false-positives. > >>> >>>>> + 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. Then, you need to make allowed_protocols equal to protocol, for the userspace tools to work properly with it. >> 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. If you choose to keep it, please don't call it as "raw_ir". Raw IR's are the ones that sends a sequence of pulse-space events to the Kernel, for them to be handled by a software decoder. What you're adding is, instead, a hardware decoded IR device. > >>> >>>>> 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