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

Reply via email to