[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC v2] Another approach to IR
    On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 10:44:58AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    > Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 07:05:49PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    > >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > >>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:00:40PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    > >>>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
    > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 03:29:44PM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
    > >>>>>> For sure we need to add an EVIOSETPROTO ioctl to allow the driver
    > >>>>>> to change the protocol in runtime.
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>> Mauro,
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> I think this kind of confuguration belongs to lirc device space,
    > >>>>> not input/evdev. This is the same as protocol selection for psmouse
    > >>>>> module: while it is normally auto-detected we have sysfs attribute to
    > >>>>> force one or another and it is tied to serio device, not input
    > >>>>> device.
    > >>>> Dmitry,
    > >>>>
    > >>>> This has nothing to do with the raw interface nor with lirc. This problem
    > >>>> happens with the evdev interface and already affects the in-kernel drivers.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> In this case, psmouse is not a good example. With a mouse, when a movement
    > >>>> occurs, you'll receive some data from its port. So, a software can autodetect
    > >>>> the protocol. The same principle can be used also with a raw pulse/space
    > >>>> interface, where software can autodetect the protocol.
    > >>> Or, in certain cases, it can not.
    > >>>
    > >>> [... skipped rationale for adding a way to control protocol (with which
    > >>> I agree) ...]
    > >>>
    > >>>> To solve this, we really need to extend evdev API to do 3 things: enumberate the
    > >>>> supported protocols, get the current protocol(s), and select the protocol(s) that
    > >>>> will be used by a newer table.
    > >>>>
    > >>> And here we start disagreeing. My preference would be for adding this
    > >>> API on lirc device level (i.e. /syc/class/lirc/lircX/blah namespace),
    > >>> since it only applicable to IR, not to input devices in general.
    > >>>
    > >>> Once you selected proper protocol(s) and maybe instantiated several
    > >>> input devices then udev (by examining input device capabilities and
    > >>> optionally looking up at the parent device properties) would use
    > >>> input evdev API to load proper keymap. Because translation of
    > >>> driver-specific codes into standard key definitions is in the input
    > >>> realm. Reading these driver-specific codes from hardware is outside of
    > >>> input layer domain.
    > >>>
    > >>> Just as psmouse ability to specify protocol is not shoved into evdev;
    > >>> just as atkbd quirks (force release key list and other driver-specific
    > >>> options) are not in evdev either; we should not overload evdev interface
    > >>> with IR-specific items.
    > >> I'm not against mapping those features as sysfs atributes, but they don't belong
    > >> to lirc, as far as I understand. From all we've discussed, we'll create a lirc
    > >> interface to allow the direct usage of raw IO. However, IR protocol is a property
    > >> that is not related to raw IO mode but, instead, to evdev mode.
    > >>
    > >
    > > Why would protocol relate to evdev node? Evdev does not really care what
    > > how the fact that a certain button was pressed was communicated to it.
    > > It may be deliveretd through PS/2 port, or maybe it was Bluetooth HID,
    > > or USB HID or USB boot protocol or some custom protocol, or RC-5, NEC or
    > > some custom IR protocol. It makes no difference _whatsoever_ to evdev
    > > nor any users of evdev care about protocol used by underlying hardware
    > > device to transmit the data.
    > >
    > >> We might add a /sys/class/IR and add IR specific stuff there, but it seems
    > >> overkill to me and will hide the fact that those parameters are part of the evdev
    > >> interface.
    > >>
    > >> So, I would just add the IR sysfs parameters at the /sys/class/input, if
    > >> the device is an IR (or create it is /sys/class/input/IR).
    > >>
    > >> I agree that the code to implement the IR specific sysfs parameter should be kept
    > >> oustide input core, as they're specific to IR implementations.
    > >>
    > >> Would this work for you?
    > >
    > > I am seeing a little bit differently structured subsystem for IR at the
    > > moment. I think we should do something like this:
    > >
    > > - receivers create /sys/class/lirc devices. These devices provide API
    > > with a ring buffer (fifo) for the raw data stream coming from (and to)
    > > them.
    > The raw interface applies only to the devices that doesn't have a hardware decoder
    > (something between 40%-60% of the currently supported devices).

    50% is quite a number I think. But if driver does not allow access to
    the raw stream - it will refuse binding to lirc_dev interface.

    > > - we allow registering several data interfaces/decoders that can be bound
    > > (manually or maybe automatically) to lirc devices. lirc devices may
    > > provide hints as to which interface(s) better suited for handling the
    > > data coming form particular receiver. Several interfaces may be bound
    > > to one device at a time.
    > > - one of the interfaces is interface implementing current lirc_dev
    > > - other interfaces may be in-kernel RC-5 decoder or other decoders.
    > > decoders will create instances of input devices
    > I don't see why having more than one interface, especially for devices with
    > hardware decoders.
    > On IR remote receivers, internally, there's just one interface per hardware.
    > Considering the hardware decoding case, why to artificially create other
    > interfaces that can't be used simultaneously? No current hardware
    > decoders can do that (or, at least, no current implementation allows).
    > We're foreseen some cases where we'll have that (like Patrick's dib0700 driver),
    > but for now, it is not possible to offer more than one interface to userspace.
    > Creating an arbitrary number of artificial interfaces just to pass a parameter
    > to the driver (the protocol), really seems overkill to me.

    We need to cater to the future cases as well. I don't want to redesign
    it in 2 years. But for devices that have only hardware decoders I
    suppose we can short-curcuit "interfaces" and have a library-like module
    creating input devices directly.

    > In the case of the cheap devices with just raw interfaces, running in-kernel
    > decoders, while it will work if you create one interface per protocol
    > per IR receiver, this also seems overkill. Why to do that? It sounds that it will
    > just create additional complexity at the kernelspace and at the userspace, since
    > now userspace programs will need to open more than one device to receive the
    > keycodes.

    _Yes_!!! You open as many event devices as there are devices you are
    interested in receiving data from. Multiplexing devices are bad, bad,
    bad. Witness /dev/input/mouse and all the attempts at working around the
    fact that if you have a special driver for one of your devices you
    receive events from the same device through 2 interfaces and all kind of
    "grab", "super-grab", "smart-grab" schemes are born.

    > > (for each remote/substream that they can recognize).
    > I'm assuming that, by remote, you're referring to a remote receiver (and not to
    > the remote itself), right?

    If we could separate by remote transmitter that would be the best I
    think, but I understand that it is rarely possible?


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-12-02 18:13    [W:0.037 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site