Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754063AbZK1Uee (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:34:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753898AbZK1Ued (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:34:33 -0500 Received: from einhorn.in-berlin.de ([192.109.42.8]:49043 "EHLO einhorn.in-berlin.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753561AbZK1Uec (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:34:32 -0500 X-Envelope-From: stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de Message-ID: <4B11893D.5070209@s5r6.in-berlin.de> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:34:05 +0100 From: Stefan Richter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20091025 SeaMonkey/1.1.18 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Smirl CC: Christoph Bartelmus , khc@pm.waw.pl, awalls@radix.net, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, maximlevitsky@gmail.com, mchehab@redhat.com, superm1@ubuntu.com Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? References: <9e4733910911280906if1191a1jd3d055e8b781e45c@mail.gmail.com> <4B116954.5050706@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <9e4733910911281058i1b28f33bh64c724a89dcb8cf5@mail.gmail.com> <4B117DEA.3030400@s5r6.in-berlin.de> <9e4733910911281208t23c938a2l7537e248e1eda4ae@mail.gmail.com> <4B11881B.7000204@s5r6.in-berlin.de> In-Reply-To: <4B11881B.7000204@s5r6.in-berlin.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1068 Lines: 24 Stefan Richter wrote: > Jon Smirl wrote: >> We have one IR receiver device and multiple remotes. How does the >> input system know how many devices to create corresponding to how many >> remotes you have? > > If several remotes are to be used on the same receiver, then they > necessarily need to generate different scancodes, don't they? Otherwise > the input driver wouldn't be able to route their events to the > respective subdevice. But if they do generate different scancodes, > there is no need to create subdevices just for EVIOCSKEYCODE's sake. (It > might still be desirable to have subdevices for other reasons perhaps.) PS, forgot to add: If there is a real need to initiate device creation from userspace, then ioctl is not the way to go. -- Stefan Richter -=====-==--= =-== ===-- http://arcgraph.de/sr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/