Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:52:07 +0100 | From | Gerd Hoffmann <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? |
| |
On 11/30/09 13:34, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Christoph Bartelmus wrote: >> Hi Mauro, >> >> I just don't want to change a working interface just because it could be >> also implemented in a different way, but having no other visible advantage >> than using more recent kernel features. > > I agree. The main reasons to review the interface is: > 1) to avoid any overlaps (if are there any) with the evdev interface;
Use lirc for raw samples. Use evdev for decoded data.
Hardware/drivers which can handle both can support both interfaces.
IMHO it makes no sense at all to squeeze raw samples through the input layer. It looks more like a serial line than a input device. In fact you can homebrew a receiver and connect it to the serial port, which was quite common in pre-usb-ir-receiver times.
> 2) to have it stable enough to be used, without changes, for a long > time.
It isn't like lirc is a new interface. It has been used in practice for years. I don't think API stability is a problem here.
> True, but even if we want to merge lirc drivers "as-is", the drivers will > still need changes, due to kernel CodingStyle, due to the usage of some API's > that may be deprecated, due to some breakage with non-Intel architectures, due > to some bugs that kernel hackers may discover, etc.
I assumed this did happen in already in preparation of this submission?
cheers, Gerd
| |