Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernelIR system?

[Andy Walls]

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:46 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > A current related problem is that i2c based devices can only be bound to
> > only one of ir-kbd-i2c *or* lirc_i2c *or* lirc_zilog at any one time.
> > Currently it is somewhat up to the bridge driver which binding is
> > preferred.  Discussion about this for the pvrusb2 module had the biggest
> > email churn IIRC.
> 
> Once lirc_dev is merged you can easily fix this:  You'll have *one* 
> driver which supports *both* evdev and lirc interfaces.  If lircd opens 
> the lirc interface raw data will be sent there, keystrokes come in via 
> uinput.  Otherwise keystrokes are send directly via evdev.  Problem solved.

This will be kind of strange for lirc_zilog (aka lirc_pvr150).  It
supports IR transmit on the PVR-150, HVR-1600, and HD-PVR.  I don't know
if transmit is raw pulse timings, but I'm sure the unit provides codes
on receive.  Occasionally blocks of "boot data" need to be programmed
into the transmitter side.  I suspect lirc_zilog will likely need
rework....


> cheers,
>    Gerd
> 
> PS:  Not sure this actually makes sense for the i2c case, as far I know
>       these do decoding in hardware and don't provide access to the raw
>       samples,

True.

>  so killing the in-kernel IR limits to make ir-kbd-i2c
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
>       being on par with lirc_i2c might be more useful in this case.

I didn't quite understand that.  Can you provide a little more info?


Thanks,
Andy

--
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/