Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933589AbZLOUTo (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933148AbZLOUTm (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:42 -0500 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:41567 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933109AbZLOUTl (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:41 -0500 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 21:19:33 +0100 From: Pavel Machek To: Jon Smirl Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Dmitry Torokhov , Krzysztof Halasa , hermann pitton , Christoph Bartelmus , awalls@radix.net, j@jannau.net, jarod@redhat.com, jarod@wilsonet.com, kraxel@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, superm1@ubuntu.com Subject: Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? Message-ID: <20091215201933.GK24406@elf.ucw.cz> References: <4B1B99A5.2080903@redhat.com> <9e4733910912060952h4aad49dake8e8486acb6566bc@mail.gmail.com> <20091207184153.GD998@core.coreip.homeip.net> <4B24DABA.9040007@redhat.com> <20091215115011.GB1385@ucw.cz> <4B279017.3080303@redhat.com> <20091215195859.GI24406@elf.ucw.cz> <9e4733910912151214n68161fc7tca0ffbf34c2c4e4@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <9e4733910912151214n68161fc7tca0ffbf34c2c4e4@mail.gmail.com> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1389 Lines: 33 On Tue 2009-12-15 15:14:02, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >> ? ? ? (11) if none is against renaming IR as RC, I'll do it on a next patch; > > > > Call it irc -- infrared remote control. Bluetooth remote controls will > > have very different characteristics. > > How are they different after the scancode is extracted from the > network packet? The scancode still needs to be passed to the input > system, go through a keymap, and end up on an evdev device. > > I would expect the code for extracting the scancode to live in the > networking stack, but after it is recovered the networking code would > use the same API as IR to submit it to input. For one thing, bluetooth (etc) has concept of devices (and reliable transfer). If you have two same bluetooth remotes, you can tell them apart, unlike IR. So yes, keymapping is the same, but that's pretty much it. Decoding will not be the same (IR is special), etc... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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/