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

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> IMO, the better is to have an API to allow creation of multiple interfaces
>> per IR receiver, based on some scancode matching table and/or on some
>> matching mask.
> 
> I think setting the keytables for each logical device would do.

Yes.
> 
> I.e. just have a way to create additional logical devices. Each can have
> its own keytable. The decoders would send their output to all logical
> remotes, trying to match the tables etc.
> 
>> It should be possible to use the filter API to match different IR's by
>> vendor/product on protocols that supports it,
> 
> That would mean unnecessary limiting.

If the mask is (unsigned)-1, it will not add any limit. This should be the default.

The advantage of the mask is that you can speedup the keycode decoding by not calling
a seek routine in the cases where it doesn't make sense.

Also, the cost of scancode & scancode_mask is cheap enough, comparing with the 
potential optimization gain of not seeking a data in a table that wouldn't match anyway.

Also, the IR core may automatically generate such mask, by doing an "and" operation of all
the scancodes at the table during table initialization/changes. If the mask is zero, it
defaults to use a (unsigned) -1 mask.

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/