[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [29]   [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?
    On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <> wrote:
    > 1. Do we agree that a lirc (-style) kernel-user interface is needed at
    >   least?
    > 2. Is there any problem with lirc kernel-user interface?

    Can you consider sending the raw IR data as a new evdev message type
    instead of creating a new device protocol?
    evdev protects the messages in a transaction to stop incomplete
    messages from being read.

    You might also want to use evdev capabilities to describe what the
    hardware can do. These were the capabilities I had made up:

    #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_36K 1
    #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_38K 2
    #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_40K 3
    #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_56K 4
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_BASEBAND 5
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_36K 6
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_38K 7
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_40K 8
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_56K 9
    #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_1 10
    #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_2 11
    #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_3 12
    #define IR_CAP_XMITTER_4 13
    #define IR_CAP_RECEIVE_RAW 14
    #define IR_CAP_SEND_RAW 15

    > If the answer for #1 is "yes" and for #2 is "no" then perhaps we merge
    > the Jarod's lirc patches (at least the core) so at least the
    > non-controversial part is done?
    > Doing so doesn't block improving input layer IR interface, does it?
    > --
    > Krzysztof Halasa

    Jon Smirl
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-29 21:47    [W:0.020 / U:3.728 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site