On Sun, Dec 06, 2009 at 12:58:00PM +0100, Christoph Bartelmus wrote:

Hi Dmitry,

on 04 Dec 09 at 15:15, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

http://lirc.sourceforge.net/remotes/lg/6711A20015N

This is an air-conditioner remote.
The entries that you see in this config file are not really separate
buttons. Instead the remote just sends the current settings for e.g.
temperature encoded in the protocol when you press some up/down key.
You really don't want to map all possible temperature settings to KEY_*
events. For such cases it would be nice to have access at the raw scan
codes from user space to do interpretation of the data.
The default would still be to pass the data to the input layer, but it
won't hurt to have the possibility to access the raw data somehow.

quoted

Interesting. IMHO, the better would be to add an evdev ioctl to return
the scancode for such cases, instead of returning the keycode.

That means you would have to set up a pseudo keymap, so that you can get
the key event which you could than react on with a ioctl. Or are you
generating KEY_UNKNOWN for every scancode that is not mapped?
What if different scan codes are mapped to the same key event? How do you
retrieve the scan code for the key event?
I don't think it can work this way.

quoted

EV_MSC/MSC_SCAN.

How would I get the 64 bit scan codes that the iMON devices generate?
How would I know that the scan code is 64 bit?
input_event.value is __s32.

quoted

I suppose we could add MSC_SCAN_END event so that we can transmit
"scancodes" of arbitrary length. You'd get several MSC_SCAN followed by
MSC_SCAN_END marker. If you don't get MSC_SCAN_END assume the code is 32
bit.

And I set a timeout to know that no MSC_SCAN_END will arrive? This is  
broken design IMHO.

EV_SYN signals the end of state transmission.

Furthermore lircd needs to know the length of the scan code in bits, not  
as a multiple of 32.

I really do not think that LIRCD is the type of application that should
be using evdev interface, but rather other way around.

quoted

FWIW there is MSC_RAW as well.

It took me some time to convice people that this is not the right way to  
handle raw timing data.

Christoph

-- 
Dmitry