[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Mauro Carvalho Chehab <> writes:
>> The issue I see is to support at the same time NEC and RC5 protocols. While
>> this may work with some devices, for others, the hardware won't allow.
> Sure. We can handle it for the "simple" devices at least.
>>> I think the mapping should be: key = proto + group + raw code, while
>>> key2 could be different_proto + different group (if any) + another code.
>> This may work for protocols up to RC5, that uses either 8 or 16 bits.
>> However, RC6 mode 6 codes can be 32 bits, and we have "only" 32 bits
>> for a scancode. So, we don't have spare bits to represent a protocol,
>> if we consider RC6 mode 6 codes as well.
> I don't see this limitation. The number of bits should depend on the
> protocol.

see include/linux/input.h:

struct input_event {
struct timeval time;
__u16 type;
__u16 code;
__s32 value;

extending the value to more than 32 bits require some changes at the input layer,
probably breaking kernel API.

>> See above. Also, several protocols have a way to check if a keystroke were
>> properly received. When handling just one protocol, we can use this to double
>> check the key. However, on a multiprotocol mode, we'll need to disable this
>> feature.
> I don't think so. We can pass the space/mark data to all (configured,
> i.e. with active mapping) protocol handlers at once. Should a check
> fail, we ignore the data. Perhaps another protocol will make some sense
> out of it.

What happens if it succeeds on two protocol handlers?


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-26 20:11    [W:0.198 / U:1.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site