On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 17:53 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Andy Walls <awa...@md.metrocast.net> wrote: > > On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 14:14 -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Christoph Bartelmus <l...@bartelmus.de> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi Jon, > >> > > >> > on 31 Jul 10 at 12:25, Jon Smirl wrote: > >> >> On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Andy Walls <awa...@md.metrocast.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> I think you won't be able to fix the problem conclusively either way. > >> >>> A > >> >>> lot of how the chip's clocks should be programmed depends on how the > >> >>> GPIOs are used and what crystal is used. > >> >>> > >> >>> I suspect many designers will use some reference design layout from > >> >>> ENE, > >> >>> but it won't be good in every case. The wire-up of the ENE of various > >> >>> motherboards is likely something you'll have to live with as unknowns. > >> >>> > >> >>> This is a case where looser tolerances in the in kernel decoders could > >> >>> reduce this driver's complexity and/or get rid of arbitrary fudge > >> >>> factors in the driver. > >> > > >> >> The tolerances are as loose as they can be. The NEC protocol uses > >> >> pulses that are 4% longer than JVC. The decoders allow errors up to 2% > >> >> (50% of 4%). The crystals used in electronics are accurate to > >> >> 0.0001%+. > >> > > >> > But the standard IR receivers are far from being accurate enough to allow > >> > tolerance windows of only 2%. > >> > I'm surprised that this works for you. LIRC uses a standard tolerance of > >> > 30% / 100 us and even this is not enough sometimes. > >> > > >> > For the NEC protocol one signal consists of 22 individual pulses at > >> > 38kHz. > >> > If the receiver just misses one pulse, you already have an error of 1/22 > >> >> 4%. > >> > >> There are different types of errors. The decoders can take large > >> variations in bit times. The problem is with cumulative errors. In > >> this case the error had accumulated up to 450us in the lead pulse. > >> That's just too big of an error > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Hmmm. Leader marks are, by protocol design, there to give time for the > > receiver's AGC to settle. We should make it OK to miss somewhat large > > portions of leader marks. I'm not sure what the harm is in accepting > > too long of a leader mark, but I'm pretty sure a leader mark that is too > > long will always be due to systematic error and not noise errors. > > > > However, if we know we have systematic errors caused by unknowns, we > > should be designing and implementing a decoding system that reasonably > > deals with those systematic errors. Again the part of the system almost > > completely out of our control is the remote controls, and we *have no > > control* over systematic errors introduced by remotes. > > We haven't encountered remotes with systematic errors. If remotes had > large errors in them they wouldn't be able to reliably control their > target devices. Find a remote that won't work with the protocol > engines and a reasonably accurate receiver. > > > > > Obviously we want to reduce or eliminate systematic errors by > > determining the unknowns and undoing their effects or by compensating > > for their overall effect. But in the case of the ENE receiver driver, > > you didn't seem to like the Maxim's software compensation for the > > systematic receiver errors. > > I would be happier if we could track down the source of the error > instead of sticking a bandaid on at the end of the process. This isn't a bandaid. Windows driver programs the period to 52 but treats it as a 50. (I don't do that because I set period to 75 - otherwise leading pulse of NEC/JVC is almost missing. I know the reason for that, and it isn't important).
> > >> and caused the JVC code to be > >> misclassified as NEC. > > > > I still have not heard why we need protocol discrimination/classifcation > > in the kernel. Doing discrimination between two protocols with such > > close timings is whose requirement again? > > If we don't do protocol engines we have to revert back to raw > recording and having everyone train the system with their remotes. The > goal is to eliminate the training step. We would also have to have > large files (LIRC configs) for building the keymaps and a new API to > deal with them. With the engines the key presses are identified by > short strings. > > A use case: install mythtv, add an IR receiver. Myth UI says to set > your universal remote to a Motorola DVR profile. Remote works - no > training step needed. > > LIRC has protocol engines too. irrecord first tries to fit the remote > into a protocol engine. If it can't it reverts to raw mode. Let's > analyze those cases where lirc ends up in raw mode and see if we can > figure out what's going wrong. > > For example I know of two things that will trip up irrecord that are > fixed in the kernel system > 1) the ene driver. we know now it had a 4% error in the reported periods No it doesn't.... It even works if leading large pulse is missing. I would never ever think of doing the adjustments, because lircds tolerance is much better. I am tired of this discussion. My ENE receiver does work now, it gives correct samples, it applies same adjustment, and thats all. And thanks to my patches, the in-kernel decoding actually works well with all protocols it supports. Besides, main target is RC5/6 and it doesn't have long pulses, therefore, it won't have that issue. > 2) Sony remotes - they mix protocols on a single remote. > > > Since these two protocols have such close timings that systematic errors > > can cause misclassification when using simple mark or space measurements > > against fixed thresholds, it indicates that a more sophisticated > > discrimination mechanism would be needed. Perhaps one that takes multiple > > successive measurements into account? > > If we get to the point where we need more sophisticated > classifications we can build it. But are we at that point yet? I'd > prefer to initially leave everything pretty strict as a way of > flushing out driver implementation bugs. > > Find some remotes and receivers that break the current system. > > > > > Regards, > > Andy > > > > > > > -- 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
