Re: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.
> 

Well, the description of NEC and RC5 protocol at http://www.sbprojects.com/knowledge/ir/rc5.htm
doesn't mention any vendor/device pair, nor I'm able to get them with the IR hardware decoders
I have.

Do you have any info on how they're encoded?

Cheers,
Mauro.
--
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/