Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Why not?  With RC5 remotes applications can get the device address
> bits for example, which right now are simply get lost in the ir code
> -> 
> keycode conversion step.

Right, this in fact makes the input layer interface unusable for many
remotes at this time.
I think the address (aka group) should be just a part of the key
("command") code, IIRC this is what lirc RC5 does (I'm presently using
a custom "media" version of RC5).

> I know that lircd does matching instead of decoding, which allows to
> handle unknown encodings.  Thats why I think there will always be
> cases which only lircd will be able to handle (using raw samples).
>
> That doesn't make attempts to actually decode the IR samples a useless
> exercise though ;)

Sure. Especially RC5-like protos are simple to decode, and it's very
reliable, even with a very unstable remote clock source (such as
RC-based = resistor + capacitor).
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/