lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
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 <mchehab@redhat.com> 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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 15:29    [W:0.267 / U:0.212 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site