Re: [RFC] What are the goals for the architecture of an in-kernelIR system?

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 06:26:55PM -0500, Andy Walls wrote:
> The only thing this buys for the user is remote/products bundles that
> work out of the box.  That can only be a solution for the 80% case.
> 
> I don't hear users crying out "Please integrate IR with the input
> system".  I do hear users say "I want my remote to work", and "How can I
> make my remote work?".  Users are not specifically asking for this
> integration of IR and the input system - a technical nuance.  If such a
> tecnical desire-ment drives excessive rework, I doubt anyone will care
> enough about IR to follow through to make a complete system.

Please integrate it so I can stop having issues with the lirc moduels
when going to a new kernel version.

> What does "equal footing" mean as an incentive anyway?  The opportunity
> to reimplement *everything* that exists for IR already over again in
> kernel-space for the sake of developer technical desires?  That's just a
> lot of work for "not invented here" syndrome.  IR transceivers are
> arguably superior to keyboards and mice anyway because they can transmit
> data too.

I have no idea.  I am sure you guys will come up with a great interface.
I just use lirc with my mythtv box.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/