[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?
Jon Smirl wrote:
> 3) No special tools - use mkdir, echo, cat, shell scripts to build maps

From the POV of a distributor, there is always a special tool required.
Whether it is implemented in bash, Python, or C doesn't make a
difference to him.

For an enduser whose distributor doesn't package that tool, it also
doesn't matter whether it is bash or Python. (C is awkward because it
needs to be run through gcc first.) A Pyton tool can operate the
existing EVIOCSKEYCODE interface just as well as a C tool.

Your mkdir/ echo/ cat programs would still just this: Programs. Sure,
these programs would be interpreted by an interpreter which is installed
everywhere, and the data they operate on is in a clear text format. The
downside is that these programs do not exist yet.

> 5) Direct multi-app support - no daemon

Think of lircd (when it feeds into uinput) as of a userspace driver
rather than a daemon. The huge benefit of a userspace driver is that it
can load configuration files.

Multi-app support is provided by evdev of course.

> What are other goals for this subsystem?

- Minimal development cost; reduced maintenance cost relative
the to status quo.

- No regressions would be best.
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= =-== ==-==

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-27 22:53    [W:0.299 / U:5.880 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site