From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753463AbYIJOUG (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:20:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751446AbYIJOT4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:19:56 -0400 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:40634 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751293AbYIJOTz (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:19:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 10:19:47 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Janne Grunau Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jarod Wilson , Ville Syrj?l? , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Bartelmus Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] lirc driver for the ATI USB RF remote receiver Message-ID: <20080910141947.GA32564@infradead.org> References: <1220933164-10160-1-git-send-email-jwilson@redhat.com> <200809100905.58304.jwilson@redhat.com> <20080910131432.GA2161@infradead.org> <200809101544.17704.j@jannau.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809101544.17704.j@jannau.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by bombadil.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 03:44:17PM +0200, Janne Grunau wrote: > On Wednesday 10 September 2008 15:14:32 Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 09:05:58AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: > > > True, though I think some users still prefer using them with the > > > lirc drivers for assorted reasons. Configuring something like > > > mythtv to work with the ati_remote{,2} driver appears to be a bit > > > more complex (or at least non- standard vs. several other popular > > > remotes) and not as functional vs. configuring mythtv > > > w/lirc_atiusb. > > > > Bad idea to have two drivers for the same piece of hardware. And > > this gets straight back into the why should lirc be different from > > the input layer point raised earlies. I think we really shouldn't > > keep lirc as a separate subsystem, but make sure all the drivers are > > written to the input layer. > > Some drivers don't report events but deliver the signal to the lirc > daemon. The daemon decodes the signal. Decoding of several IR protocols > and mapping of each possible remote to events are things much easier > done in userspace. Mixing these two in the same interface seems like a really bad idea. The input layer is the right interface for devices that directly produce events. If you want to decode them in userspace you need a different interface for the daemon. Not sure why you really want to do this in userspace, though. > Aslo LIRC is not only about IR input but also output. The input layer also does some outputs, like the pc speaker :)