On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:42:13PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:04:30PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >> On Dec 2, 2009, at 2:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:22:18PM -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > >>>> On 12/2/09 12:30 PM, Jon Smirl wrote: > >>>>>>>> (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? > >>>>> > >>>>> The code I posted using configfs did that. Instead of making apps IR > >>>>> aware it mapped the vendor/device/command triplets into standard Linux > >>>>> keycodes. Each remote was its own evdev device. > >>>> > >>>> Note, of course, that you can only do that iff each remote uses distinct > >>>> > >>>> triplets. A good portion of mythtv users use a universal of some sort, > >>>> programmed to emulate another remote, such as the mce remote bundled > >>>> with mceusb transceivers, or the imon remote bundled with most imon > >>>> receivers. I do just that myself. > >>>> > >>>> Personally, I've always considered the driver/interface to be the > >>>> receiver, not the remote. The lirc drivers operate at the receiver > >>>> level, anyway, and the distinction between different remotes is made by > >>>> the lirc daemon. > >>> > >>> The fact that lirc does it this way does not necessarily mean it is the > >>> most corerct way. > >> > >> No, I know that, I'm just saying that's how I've always looked at it, and > >> that's how lirc does it right now, not that it must be that way. > >> > >>> Do you expect all bluetooth input devices be presented > >>> as a single blob just because they happen to talk to the sane receiver > >>> in yoru laptop? Do you expect your USB mouse and keyboard be merged > >>> together just because they end up being serviced by the same host > >>> controller? If not why remotes should be any different? > >> > >> A bluetooth remote has a specific device ID that the receiver has to > >> pair with. Your usb mouse and keyboard each have specific device IDs. > >> A usb IR *receiver* has a specific device ID, the remotes do not. So > >> there's the major difference from your examples. > >> > > > > Not exactly... I can have 2 identical USB keyboadrs form the same > > manufacturer and they will still be treated separately. BT has session > > ID to help distinguish between devices. > > Semantics. :) > > My main point is that each of these devices has device ID that can be > determined without having to first do some protocol analysis and table > lookups to figure out which "device" some random IR input is actually coming > from. >
Heh, right back at ya ;) The fact that you need to do some more work to separate 2 physical devices does not mean it should not be done. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
