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

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>> I don't think we need an userspace interface for the in-kernel
>> decoders.
> 
> Of course we need it, to set (and probably retrieve) scancode-keycode
> mappings. This could probably be, ATM, the existing input layer channel.

This is the standard/extended evdev interface already discussed.
> 
>> All
>> it needs is to enable/disable the protocol decoders, imo via sysfs interface.
> 
> This isn't IMHO needed at all. The protocol is enabled when at least one
> key using it is configured, otherwise it's disabled. We probably need
> some "wildcard" as well, to capture decoded scancodes (through the input
> layer).
> This is BTW pure optimization, the protocol could stay enabled all the
> time, only wasting the cycles.

The enable/disable protocol decoder enable/disable interface is needed anyway,
due to the needs for the hardware IR decoders (and the legacy IR decoders,
while we don't convert all of them to the generic ones).

So, IMO, the interface will be cleaner if we use it also for the generic
IR decoders.

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/