Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system?
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date: 2009-11-28 01:35:07
Also in:
linux-media, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2010-04-10 · Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? · Mauro Carvalho Chehab <hidden>
- 2010-04-10 · Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? · hermann pitton <hidden>
- 2010-04-10 · Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? · Jon Smirl <hidden>
- 2010-04-09 · Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? · Mauro Carvalho Chehab <hidden>
- 2010-04-09 · Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernel IR system? · Andy Walls <hidden>
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 02:21:13PM -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Ferenc Wagner [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Admittedly, I don't know why /dev/mouse is evil, maybe I'd understand if/dev/mouse is evil because it is possible to read partial mouse messages. evdev fixes things so that you only get complete messages.
For me the main evil of /dev/mouse (and other multuiplexing interfaces) is that it is impossible to remove one of the streams from the multiplexed stream without affecting other users. And so are born various "grab" schemes where we declare one application _the application_ and let it "grab" the device.. which breaks when there are other applications also interested in the same data stream. -- Dmitry