Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753234AbZK2VrQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:47:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752460AbZK2VrO (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:47:14 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]:58993 "EHLO mail-qy0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752048AbZK2VrN convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:47:13 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s5tGnx1vBcx8dOmUePUpHVgMI/N6zcl+c5nwLoZ9irSRjvfBCLqpFoB3XtBMOW3GP7 PEumU4zRQf72D0OvCnlHP03hbPJwwFgibZ8/THDsE8McOIcV8dLfnnjw/XPhvJg1aOD4 K6DCTl/RQM9HGsMJOH6rAnDuXEFWwtRDgJnVk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83224BA3-A5FF-4525-BF20-16A60F865C0A@gmail.com> References: <9e4733910911280906if1191a1jd3d055e8b781e45c@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910911280937k37551b38g90f4a60b73665853@mail.gmail.com> <1259450815.3137.19.camel@palomino.walls.org> <9e4733910911291244p364b328fm3a76ded4e4cd8603@mail.gmail.com> <83224BA3-A5FF-4525-BF20-16A60F865C0A@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: <9e4733910911291347x4c4cac73h8c64223d0de563e4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? From: Jon Smirl To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Krzysztof Halasa , Andy Walls , Christoph Bartelmus , "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" , "stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de" , "superm1@ubuntu.com" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 52 On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:44 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote: >>> >>> 1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed at >>> ?least? >>> >>> 2. Is there any problem with lirc kernel-user interface? >> >> Can you consider sending the raw IR data as a new evdev message type >> instead of creating a new device protocol? > > No, I think it would be wrong. Such events are ill-suited for consumption by > regular applications and would introduce the "looping" interface I described > in my other email. Regular applications are going to ignore these messages. The only consumer for them is the LIRC daemon. Which is just going to process them and re-inject the events back into evdev again in a different form. IR is an input device, what make it so special that it needs to by pass this subsystem and implement its own private communications scheme? >> evdev protects the messages in a transaction to stop incomplete >> messages from being read. > > If such property is desired we can add it to the new lirc-like interface, > can't we? Why do you want to redesign evdev instead of using it? > > -- >> > Dmitry > -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com -- 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/