On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 19:15 +0200, Christoph Bartelmus wrote: > Hi Maxim, > > on 29 Jul 10 at 19:26, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 11:38 -0400, Andy Walls wrote: > >> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 17:41 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > >>> On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 09:23 +0200, Christoph Bartelmus wrote: > >>>> Hi Maxim, > >>>> > >>>> on 29 Jul 10 at 02:40, Maxim Levitsky wrote: > >>>> [...] > >>>>> In addition to comments, I changed helper function that processes > >>>>> samples so it sends last space as soon as timeout is reached. > >>>>> This breaks somewhat lirc, because now it gets 2 spaces in row. > >>>>> However, if it uses timeout reports (which are now fully supported) > >>>>> it will get such report in middle. > >>>>> > >>>>> Note that I send timeout report with zero value. > >>>>> I don't think that this value is importaint. > >>>> > >>>> This does not sound good. Of course the value is important to userspace > >>>> and 2 spaces in a row will break decoding. > >>>> > >>>> Christoph > >>> > >>> Could you explain exactly how timeout reports work? > >>> > >>> Lirc interface isn't set to stone, so how about a reasonable compromise. > >>> After reasonable long period of inactivity (200 ms for example), space > >>> is sent, and then next report starts with a pulse. > >>> So gaps between keypresses will be maximum of 200 ms, and as a bonus I > >>> could rip of the logic that deals with remembering the time? > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Maxim Levitsky > > > So, timeout report is just another sample, with a mark attached, that > > this is last sample? right? > > No, a timeout report is just an additional hint for the decoder that a > specific amount of time has passed since the last pulse _now_. > > [...] > > In that case, lets do that this way: > > > > As soon as timeout is reached, I just send lirc the timeout report. > > Then next keypress will start with pulse. > > When timeout reports are enabled the sequence must be: > <pulse> <timeout> <space> <pulse> > where <timeout> is optional. > > lircd will not work when you leave out the space. It must know the exact > time between the pulses. Some hardware generates timeout reports that are > too short to distinguish between spaces that are so short that the next > sequence can be interpreted as a repeat or longer spaces which indicate > that this is a new key press.
Let me give an example to see if I got that right. Suppose we have this sequence of reports from the driver: 500 (pulse) 200000 (timeout) 100000000 (space) 500 (pulse) Is that correct that time between first and second pulse is '100200000' ? Best regards, Maxim Levitsky -- 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
