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=WJ26zFM0qYIPGq0bv6ByHtEvDT6+lkgd4ID/FWLJQFoWdXIVy3dy50UAYgCbpiTFE6
         yYAR7n57LEC2UpejOXS/hDRqrMysR8GAx6l2x6YfzSaaoyw07hfoC7DwaQ4UO8D9kvgY
         SDW4bfjFRM94f2lO7B/JEysf2rU5P2vvxfHyY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2D11378A-041C-4B56-91FF-3E62F5F19753@wilsonet.com>
References: <4B155288.1060509@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>
	 <4B16BE6A.7000601@redhat.com>
	 <20091202195634.GB22689@core.coreip.homeip.net>
	 <2D11378A-041C-4B56-91FF-3E62F5F19753@wilsonet.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:20:50 -0500
Message-ID: <9e4733910912021620s7a2b09a8v88dd45eef38835a@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR
From: Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@gmail.com>
To: Jarod Wilson <jarod@wilsonet.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
       Jarod Wilson <jarod@redhat.com>,
       Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@redhat.com>,
       Devin Heitmueller <dheitmueller@kernellabs.com>,
       Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@gmail.com>, awalls@radix.net,
       j@jannau.net, 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 <lirc@bartelmus.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3317
Lines: 69

On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@wilsonet.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> The fact that lirc does it this way does not necessarily mean it is the
>> most corerct way.
>
> No, I know that, I'm just saying that's how I've always looked at it, and that's how lirc does it right now, not that it must be that way.
>
>> Do you expect all bluetooth input devices be presented
>> as a single blob just because they happen to talk to the sane receiver
>> in yoru laptop? Do you expect your USB mouse and keyboard be merged
>> together just because they end up being serviced by the same host
>> controller? If not why remotes should be any different?
>
> A bluetooth remote has a specific device ID that the receiver has to pair with. Your usb mouse and keyboard each have specific device IDs. A usb IR *receiver* has a specific device ID, the remotes do not. So there's the major difference from your examples.

Actually remotes do have an ID. They all transmit vendor/device pairs
which is exactly how USB works.

>
>> Now I understand that if 2 remotes send completely identical signals we
>> won't be able to separate them, but in cases when we can I think we
>> should.
>
> I don't have a problem with that, if its a truly desired feature. But for the most part, I don't see the point. Generally, you go from having multiple remotes, one per device (where "device" is your TV, amplifier, set top box, htpc, etc), to having a single universal remote that controls all of those devices. But for each device (IR receiver), *one* IR command set. The desire to use multiple distinct remotes with a single IR receiver doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I'm just not creative enough in my use of IR. :)
>
> --
> Jarod Wilson
> jarod@wilsonet.com
>
>
>
>


-- 
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/