Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755174AbZLBTXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:23:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753135AbZLBTXN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:23:13 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:24923 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751429AbZLBTXM (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2009 14:23:12 -0500 Message-ID: <4B16BE6A.7000601@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:22:18 -0500 From: Jarod Wilson Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091121 Thunderbird/3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Smirl CC: Dmitry Torokhov , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Devin Heitmueller , Maxim Levitsky , awalls@radix.net, j@jannau.net, jarod@wilsonet.com, khc@pm.waw.pl, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, lirc-list@lists.sourceforge.net, superm1@ubuntu.com, Christoph Bartelmus Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR References: <9e4733910912010816q32e829a2uce180bfda69ef86d@mail.gmail.com> <829197380912010909m59cb1078q5bd2e00af0368aaf@mail.gmail.com> <4B155288.1060509@redhat.com> <20091201175400.GA19259@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4B1567D8.7080007@redhat.com> <20091201201158.GA20335@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4B15852D.4050505@redhat.com> <20091202093803.GA8656@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4B16614A.3000208@redhat.com> <20091202171059.GC17839@core.coreip.homeip.net> <9e4733910912020930t3c9fe973k16fd353e916531a4@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9e4733910912020930t3c9fe973k16fd353e916531a4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1707 Lines: 39 On 12/2/09 12:30 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: >>>> (for each remote/substream that they can recognize). >>> >> >>> >> I'm assuming that, by remote, you're referring to a remote receiver (and not to >>> >> the remote itself), right? >> > >> > If we could separate by remote transmitter that would be the best I >> > think, but I understand that it is rarely possible? > > The code I posted using configfs did that. Instead of making apps IR > aware it mapped the vendor/device/command triplets into standard Linux > keycodes. Each remote was its own evdev device. Note, of course, that you can only do that iff each remote uses distinct triplets. A good portion of mythtv users use a universal of some sort, programmed to emulate another remote, such as the mce remote bundled with mceusb transceivers, or the imon remote bundled with most imon receivers. I do just that myself. Personally, I've always considered the driver/interface to be the receiver, not the remote. The lirc drivers operate at the receiver level, anyway, and the distinction between different remotes is made by the lirc daemon. > For IR to "just work" the irrecord training process needs be > eliminated for 90% of users. Pretty sure that's already the case. I have upwards of 20 remotes and 15 receivers. I've had to run irrecord maybe two times in five years to get any of them working. The existing lirc remote database is fairly extensive. -- Jarod Wilson jarod@redhat.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/