lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR
From
Date
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 08:00 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Andy Walls wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 14:55 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:


> > Both of those IR devices are/will be encapsulated in a v4l2_subdevice
> > object internally. I was going to write lirc_v4l glue between the
> > v4l2_device/v4l2_subdev_ir_ops and lirc_dev.
> >
> > As for the the I2C chips, I was going to go back and encapsulate those
> > in the v4l2_subdevice object as well, so then my notional lirc_v4l could
> > pick those up too. The I2C subsystem only allows one binding to an I2C
> > client address/name on a bus. So without some new glue like a notional
> > lirc_v4l, it *may* be hard to share between ir-kbd-i2c and lirc_i2c and
> > lirc_zilog.
>
> Maybe you're having a bad time because you may be trying to integrate lirc
> at the wrong place.

These were just ideas. I haven't done *anything* yet. ;)


> All devices at V4L tree including ir-kbd-i2c use ir-common.ko
> (at /drivers/media/common tree) module to communicate to IR's.
> I'm preparing some patches to extend this also to dvb-usb devices
> (that uses a close enough infrastructure).
>
> Also, most of the decoding code are there, in a form of helper routines.
>
> As the idea is to provide lirc interface to all devices that can work with
> raw pulse/space, the proper place is to write a subroutine there that, once
> called, will make those pulse/space raw codes available to lirc and will
> call the needed decoders to export them also to evdev.
>
> The code at ir-common module was originally built to be used by V4L, but I'm
> porting the code there to be generic enough to be a library that can be used
> by other drivers. So, lirc_zilog and other lirc devices that will need to open
> evdev interfaces after running a decoder can use them.

I think I see what you are saying (I wish could see look at a whiteboard
somewhere...). Wherever we come through internally to split to 2
different userspace interfaces is fine, if you've got a big picture plan
you think is feasible.
That seems like a bit of perturbation to lirc_zilog and lirc_i2c. My
thought was that lirc_v4l using the standardized v4l2_subdev_ir_ops
interface, and maybe some new calls associted with v4l2_device, could
subsume/unify all the functionality of lirc_i2c, lirc_zilog, ...
lirc_whatever.

Maybe that's just a poorly thought out dream though...


> Due to that, we shouldn't add v4l2_subdevice there. Nothing prevents to create
> a v4l2-ir-subdev glue if you want to see the IR's as subdevices, but this should
> be implemented as a separate module.

The v4l_subdevice just abstracted the IR hardware into a nice (mental)
box for me -- easier to keep hardware separate from software decoders
and userspace interface logic.

Also, since v4l2_subdevices may have per subdevice /dev nodes and
the /dev/../mcN nodes providing a discovery mechanism due to the Meda
Controller framework, wrapping things in v4l2_subdevice may be handy for
development and debug. Or ... as an additional operational interface to
userspace. :D *ducks and runs for cover*

Regards,
Andy

> Cheers,
> Mauro.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-03 13:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site