On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Jarod Wilson <ja...@wilsonet.com> 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.
Actually remotes do have an ID. They all transmit vendor/device pairs which is exactly how USB works. > >> Now I understand that if 2 remotes send completely identical signals we >> won't be able to separate them, but in cases when we can I think we >> should. > > I don't have a problem with that, if its a truly desired feature. But for the > most part, I don't see the point. Generally, you go from having multiple > remotes, one per device (where "device" is your TV, amplifier, set top box, > htpc, etc), to having a single universal remote that controls all of those > devices. But for each device (IR receiver), *one* IR command set. The desire > to use multiple distinct remotes with a single IR receiver doesn't make sense > to me. Perhaps I'm just not creative enough in my use of IR. :) > > -- > Jarod Wilson > ja...@wilsonet.com > > > > -- Jon Smirl jonsm...@gmail.com -- 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