Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernelIR system?

[Pavel Machek]

On Tue 2009-12-15 15:14:02, Jon Smirl wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>       (11) if none is against renaming IR as RC, I'll do it on a next patch;
> >
> > Call it irc -- infrared remote control. Bluetooth remote controls will
> > have very different characteristics.
> 
> How are they different after the scancode is extracted from the
> network packet? The scancode still needs to be passed to the input
> system, go through a keymap, and end up on an evdev device.
> 
> I would expect the code for extracting the scancode to live in the
> networking stack, but after it is recovered the networking code would
> use the same API as IR to submit it to input.

For one thing,  bluetooth (etc) has concept of devices (and reliable
transfer). If you have two same bluetooth remotes, you can tell them
apart, unlike IR.

So yes, keymapping is the same, but that's pretty much it. Decoding
will not be the same (IR is special), etc...
									Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/