On Thu, August 26, 2010 21:14, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:01:57AM +0200, David Härdeman wrote: >> The following series merges the different files that currently make up >> the ir-core module into a single-file rc-core module. >> >> In addition, the ir_input_dev and ir_dev_props structs are replaced >> by a single rc_dev struct with an API similar to that of the input >> subsystem. >> >> This allows the removal of all knowledge of any input devices from the >> rc drivers and paves the way for allowing multiple input devices per >> rc device in the future. The namespace conversion from ir_* to rc_* >> should mostly be done for the drivers with this patchset. >> >> I have intentionally not signed off on the patches yet since they >> haven't >> been tested. I'd like your feedback on the general approach before I >> spend >> the time to properly test the result. >> >> Also, the imon driver is not converted (and will thus break with this >> patchset). The reason is that the imon driver wants to generate mouse >> events on the input dev under the control of rc-core. I was hoping that >> Jarod would be willing to convert the imon driver to create a separate >> input device for sending mouse events to userspace :) > > Yeah, I could be persuaded to do that. Means that the imon driver, when > driving one of the touchscreen devices, will bring up 3 separate input > devices, but oh well. (I'd actually considered doing that when porting to > ir-core in the first place, but went the lazy route. ;)
That would be good. I'm pretty certain that the split will be necessary sooner or later. >> Comments please... > > Haven't tried it out at all yet or done more than a quick skim through the > patches, but at first glance, I do like the idea of further abstracting > away the input layer. I know I tanked a few things the first go 'round, > thinking I needed to do both some rc-layer and input-layer setup and/or > teardown. It becomes more cut and dry if you don't see anything > input-related anywhere at all. Not to mention we will have a more consistent user experience. For example: some of the current hardware drivers are fiddling with the repeat values of the input dev...something which should be the same across the entire subsystem (you wouldn't expect the repetition rate for the exact same remote control to change just because you change the receiver). Also, it's necessary for any future support of multiple input devices (one per physical remote control being one example)...and it gives us more flexibility to make changes in rc-core when drivers do not muck around in subdevices (input devices that is). > One thing I did note with the patches is that a lot of bits were altered > from ir-foo to rc-foo, but not all of them... If we're going to make the > change, why no go whole hog? (Or was it only things relevant to ir > specifically right now that didn't get renamed?) The rule of thumb I followed was to rename stuff that I touched but leave unchanged code alone. Renaming the remaining functions can be done in later, separate, patches (some of them will be more invasive as file names need changing as well). On a related note, I'm getting confused wrt git the v4l-dvb git branches. The current patches are against staging/rc which hasn't seen much activity in a month or two but staging/other seems to carry some more recent rc-related patches...which one am I supposed to base my work on? -- David Härdeman -- 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
