Messages in this thread |  | | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | | Subject | Re: [RFC] Should we create a raw input interface for IR's ? - Was: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] lirc core device driver infrastructure | | Date | Thu, 26 Nov 2009 17:41:28 +0100 |
| |
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com> writes:
> Why not? With RC5 remotes applications can get the device address > bits for example, which right now are simply get lost in the ir code > -> > keycode conversion step.
Right, this in fact makes the input layer interface unusable for many remotes at this time. I think the address (aka group) should be just a part of the key ("command") code, IIRC this is what lirc RC5 does (I'm presently using a custom "media" version of RC5).
> I know that lircd does matching instead of decoding, which allows to > handle unknown encodings. Thats why I think there will always be > cases which only lircd will be able to handle (using raw samples). > > That doesn't make attempts to actually decode the IR samples a useless > exercise though ;)
Sure. Especially RC5-like protos are simple to decode, and it's very reliable, even with a very unstable remote clock source (such as RC-based = resistor + capacitor). -- Krzysztof Halasa
|  |