linux-media.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* scancodes identified as invalid
@ 2019-07-19 11:50 JohnG
  2019-07-21 19:36 ` Sean Young
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: JohnG @ 2019-07-19 11:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-media

I have POWER_KEY scancodes, that work as RAW data with ir-ctl -s [file], 
but are not working with ir-ctl -S:

     0x20df10ef (POWER_KEY for my LG tv)
     0x02FD48B7 (POWER_KEY for my Toshiba tv)

rc6_mce:0x800f0410 works, as does nec32:0x800f0410 (though not 
nec:0x800f0410), so it doesn't seem to be an issue with 32-bit codes.

I use AnalysIR, and it indicates the protocol is NEC for the above 
codes, though irdb.tk indicates the protocol is NEC1.

1) is there a description of the various protocols? (how can I know if I 
should use nec or nec32, with a 32 bit value?)

2) are my scancodes failing to work, because they are (possibly) NEC1 
protocol?

3) if NEC1 is not the same as nec or nec32, is it scheduled to be added 
to ir-ctl in the near future?

JohnG


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: scancodes identified as invalid
  2019-07-19 11:50 scancodes identified as invalid JohnG
@ 2019-07-21 19:36 ` Sean Young
       [not found]   ` <1981366943.5122868.1563752034290@mail.yahoo.com>
       [not found]   ` <1881197532.5237588.1563795842895@mail.yahoo.com>
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sean Young @ 2019-07-21 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: JohnG; +Cc: linux-media

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 06:50:05AM -0500, JohnG wrote:
> I have POWER_KEY scancodes, that work as RAW data with ir-ctl -s [file], but
> are not working with ir-ctl -S:
> 
>     0x20df10ef (POWER_KEY for my LG tv)
>     0x02FD48B7 (POWER_KEY for my Toshiba tv)

As you can see here https://www.sbprojects.net/knowledge/ir/nec.php the
nec protocol has an inverted address (2nd byte) and inverted command
(3rd byte). The inverted values are not in regular nec scancodes for ir-ctl,
as they are redundant.

So the first values would be "ir-ctl -S nec:0x2010" and the second one
"ir-ctl -s nec:0x0248".

> rc6_mce:0x800f0410 works, as does nec32:0x800f0410 (though not
> nec:0x800f0410), so it doesn't seem to be an issue with 32-bit codes.
> 
> I use AnalysIR, and it indicates the protocol is NEC for the above codes,
> though irdb.tk indicates the protocol is NEC1.
> 
> 1) is there a description of the various protocols? (how can I know if I
> should use nec or nec32, with a 32 bit value?)

There isn't any documentation, although we could really use some. I'll try
to write something up when I get some time. In the mean time, you
can see a list of the protocols to and bitmask here:

https://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-utils.git/tree/utils/common/ir-encode.c#n344

So the scancode_mask shows which bits are actually valid; if any bits
outside of the mask are set, ir-ctl will say the scancode is invalid.

So for nec any value between 0 and 0xffff is valid; necx it is 0 to 0xffffff
and nec32 it is 0 to 0xffffffff.

> 2) are my scancodes failing to work, because they are (possibly) NEC1
> protocol?

I'm not sure what the nec1 protocol is exactly. This sounds like a AnalysIR
invention.

> 
> 3) if NEC1 is not the same as nec or nec32, is it scheduled to be added to
> ir-ctl in the near future?

Please let me know how you get on with the above.

Thanks

Sean

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: scancodes identified as invalid
       [not found]   ` <1981366943.5122868.1563752034290@mail.yahoo.com>
@ 2019-07-22  5:22     ` Sean Young
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sean Young @ 2019-07-22  5:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John G; +Cc: linux-media

Hi,

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 11:33:54PM +0000, John G wrote:
>  Hi Sean, 
> 
> Thank you for the reply and the links! (difficult to find with Google)
> 
> >  I'm not sure what the nec1 protocol is exactly. This sounds like a AnalysIR invention.
> 
> Actually, NEC1 is noted at irdb.tk (IR code database) - AnalysIR identifies it as NEC, though probably should be more specifically identified as nec32.
> 
> 
> > So for nec any value between 0 and 0xffff is valid; necx it is 0 to 0xffffff and nec32 it is 0 to 0xffffffff.
> 
> So then nec32 should accept a 32bit value, so it would seem I have nec32 codes...  
> 
> So then why do "ir-ctl -S nec32:0x20df10ef" and "ir-ctl -S nec32:0x02FD48B7" return an invalid scancode error?  
> 
> What's also peculiar, is that some 32-bit codes work -  "ir-ctl -S nec32:0x800f0410" transmits with no problem.
> Could there be a snafu in the scancode check for nec32?

So nec can repeat the address and command bits in inverted form, but
ir-ctl does not want them in the scancode if they can be removed. Currently
it just says "invalid scancode" which is not helpful really.

nec32:0x02FD48B7 can be simplified into nec:0x0248 so it does not accept it.
I think ir-ctl should be much better on this. How about this patch.

Thanks,

Sean


From c94336a86c6f34315ffd934186b43e5524193b01 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2019 06:15:37 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v4l-utils] ir-ctl: show user how scancodes should be presented

Currently ir-ctl just says the scancode is invalid, which is not
very clear.

Signed-off-by: Sean Young <sean@mess.org>
---
 utils/common/ir-encode.c | 68 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
 utils/common/ir-encode.h |  2 +-
 utils/ir-ctl/ir-ctl.c    | 10 ++----
 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/utils/common/ir-encode.c b/utils/common/ir-encode.c
index 93c88501..670ede11 100644
--- a/utils/common/ir-encode.c
+++ b/utils/common/ir-encode.c
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
 #include <stdint.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
 #include <ctype.h>
+#include <stdio.h>
 
 #include <linux/lirc.h>
 
@@ -427,22 +428,63 @@ unsigned protocol_scancode_mask(enum rc_proto proto)
 	return protocols[proto].scancode_mask;
 }
 
-bool protocol_scancode_valid(enum rc_proto p, unsigned s)
+void protocol_scancode_valid(enum rc_proto *p, unsigned *s)
 {
-	if (s & ~protocols[p].scancode_mask)
-		return false;
-
-	if (p == RC_PROTO_NECX) {
-		return (((s >> 16) ^ ~(s >> 8)) & 0xff) != 0;
-	} else if (p == RC_PROTO_NEC32) {
-		return (((s >> 24) ^ ~(s >> 16)) & 0xff) != 0;
-	} else if (p == RC_PROTO_RC6_MCE) {
-		return (s & 0xffff0000) == 0x800f0000;
-	} else if (p == RC_PROTO_RC6_6A_32) {
-		return (s & 0xffff0000) != 0x800f0000;
+	enum rc_proto p2 = *p;
+	unsigned s2 = *s;
+
+	// rc6_mce is rc6_6a_32 with vendor code 0x800f and
+	if (*p == RC_PROTO_RC6_MCE && (*s & 0xffff0000) != 0x800f0000) {
+		p2 = RC_PROTO_RC6_6A_32;
+		s2 = 0x800f0000 + (*s & 0x7fff);
+		fprintf(stderr, "warning: rc6_mce:0x%08x should be written as rc6_6a_32:%082x\n", *s, s2);
+	} else if (*p == RC_PROTO_RC6_6A_32 && (*s & 0xffff0000) == 0x800f0000) {
+		p2 = RC_PROTO_RC6_MCE;
+	} else if (*p == RC_PROTO_NEC || *p == RC_PROTO_NECX || *p == RC_PROTO_NEC32) {
+		// nec scancodes may repeat the address and command
+		// in inverted form; the inverted values are not in the
+		// scancode.
+
+		// can 24 bit scancode be represented as 16 bit value
+		if (*s > 0x0000ffff && *s <= 0x00ffffff) {
+			if ((((*s >> 16) ^ ~(*s >> 8)) & 0xff) != 0) {
+				// is it necx
+				p2 = RC_PROTO_NECX;
+			} else {
+				// or regular nec
+				s2 = ((*s >> 8) & 0xff00) | (*s & 0x00ff);
+				p2 = RC_PROTO_NEC;
+			}
+		// can 32 bit scancode be represented as 24 or 16 bit value
+		} else if (*s > 0x00ffffff) {
+			if (((((*s >> 24) ^ ~(*s >> 16)) & 0xff) == 0) &&
+			    ((((*s >> 8) ^ ~(*s >> 0)) & 0xff) == 0)) {
+				// is it nec
+				s2 = ((*s >> 16) & 0xff00) |
+				     ((*s >> 8) & 0x00ff);
+				p2 = RC_PROTO_NEC;
+			} else if (((((*s >> 24) ^ ~(*s >> 16)) & 0xff) == 0) &&
+			    ((((*s >> 8) ^ ~(*s >> 0)) & 0xff) != 0)) {
+				// is it nec-x
+				s2 = ((*s >> 16) & 0xffff00) |
+				     ((*s >> 8) & 0x0000ff);
+				p2 = RC_PROTO_NECX;
+			} else {
+				// or regular nec
+				p2 = RC_PROTO_NEC32;
+			}
+		}
 	}
 
-	return true;
+	s2 &= protocols[p2].scancode_mask;
+
+	if (*p != p2 || *s != s2) {
+		fprintf(stderr, "warning: %s:0x%x should be written as %s:0x%x\n",
+			protocol_name(*p), *s,
+			protocol_name(p2), s2);
+		*p = p2;
+		*s = s2;
+	}
 }
 
 bool protocol_encoder_available(enum rc_proto proto)
diff --git a/utils/common/ir-encode.h b/utils/common/ir-encode.h
index 7202c2d8..df595354 100644
--- a/utils/common/ir-encode.h
+++ b/utils/common/ir-encode.h
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 bool protocol_match(const char *name, enum rc_proto *proto);
 unsigned protocol_carrier(enum rc_proto proto);
 unsigned protocol_max_size(enum rc_proto proto);
-bool protocol_scancode_valid(enum rc_proto proto, unsigned scancode);
+void protocol_scancode_valid(enum rc_proto *proto, unsigned *scancode);
 unsigned protocol_scancode_mask(enum rc_proto proto);
 bool protocol_encoder_available(enum rc_proto proto);
 unsigned protocol_encode(enum rc_proto proto, unsigned scancode, unsigned *buf);
diff --git a/utils/ir-ctl/ir-ctl.c b/utils/ir-ctl/ir-ctl.c
index 03c2791d..82ac0dee 100644
--- a/utils/ir-ctl/ir-ctl.c
+++ b/utils/ir-ctl/ir-ctl.c
@@ -265,10 +265,7 @@ static struct file *read_file(struct arguments *args, const char *fname)
 				return NULL;
 			}
 
-			if (!protocol_scancode_valid(proto, scancode)) {
-				fprintf(stderr, _("error: %s:%d: invalid scancode '%s' for protocol '%s'\n"), fname, lineno, scancodestr, protocol_name(proto));
-				return NULL;
-			}
+			protocol_scancode_valid(&proto, &scancode);
 
 			if (len + protocol_max_size(proto) >= LIRCBUF_SIZE) {
 				fprintf(stderr, _("error: %s:%d: too much IR for one transmit\n"), fname, lineno);
@@ -380,10 +377,7 @@ static struct file *read_scancode(const char *name)
 		return NULL;
 	}
 
-	if (!protocol_scancode_valid(proto, scancode)) {
-		fprintf(stderr, _("error: invalid scancode '%s' for protocol '%s'\n"), p + 1, protocol_name(proto));
-		return NULL;
-	}
+	protocol_scancode_valid(&proto, &scancode);
 
 	f = malloc(sizeof(*f));
 	if (f == NULL) {
-- 
2.21.0


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: scancodes identified as invalid (I found the problem)
       [not found]   ` <1881197532.5237588.1563795842895@mail.yahoo.com>
@ 2019-07-22 13:26     ` Sean Young
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sean Young @ 2019-07-22 13:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John G; +Cc: linux-media

Hi John,

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:44:02AM +0000, John G wrote:
>  Hi Sean,
> Using s = 0x20df10ef, protocol_scancode_valid() will return false (meaning it is not a valid scancode).
> 
> s>>24 = 0x00000020
> s>>16 = 0x000020df
> ~(0x20df) = 0xdf20
> ( 0x0020 ^ 0xdf20) = 0xdf00
> 0xdf00 & 0xff = 00 !=0 will return false (fails scancode check)
> 
> I'm not sure I understand what is being checked, since any code between 0x0 and 0xffffffff should be valid for nec32.

So first of all, nec is divided into three sub-protocols: nec, nec-x and nec32.
This is done because there are a lot of dvb IR receivers which can only
decode nec, or only nec and nec-x.

So the way kernel nec decoder works means that if you transmit nec32:0x20df10ef,
it will be decoded as nec:0x20df.

See:
https://git.linuxtv.org/media_tree.git/tree/include/media/rc-core.h#n355

and:

https://git.linuxtv.org/media_tree.git/tree/drivers/media/rc/ir-nec-decoder.c#n134

ir-ctl is being pendantic about this and wants you to specify the protocol
the way it will be decode. How about the following output for ir-ctl:

$ ir-ctl -S nec32:0xef10c03f
warning: `nec32:0xef10c03f' will be decoded as `nec:0xefc0'

Does this make sense?


> Is this check really necessary? Maybe a -force option to bypass the scancode check? ;)
> 
> I did try to send ir-ctl -S 0x2010, but the TV did not respond.
> I've only had success sending it the RAW version, which does look like the full 32-bit code.
> -----
> Ah! I just had a breakthrough!  
> 
> I noticed the nec description you sent me to, has LSB being transmitted first.
> On a hunch, I reversed the bit order of the code, (ir-ctl -S 0x0408, instead of 0x2010), and bingo!  
> 
> It make sense, really, because the raw code that works, is in LSB first order, so my error was (unintentionally) giving the hex code to ir-ctl, in raw/LSB order, instead of first converting it to Big Endian/MSB order. 
> 
> So, it's still not clear why "any" 32-bit code can't be entered, but in any case, I'm able to control things now!
> 
> Thank you for your support!

Please keep it on the list and please don't top-post.

Thanks

Sean

> 
> Kind regards,JohnG
> 
> 
>     On Sunday, July 21, 2019, 2:36:29 PM CDT, Sean Young <sean@mess.org> wrote:  
>  
>  Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 06:50:05AM -0500, JohnG wrote:
> > I have POWER_KEY scancodes, that work as RAW data with ir-ctl -s [file], but
> > are not working with ir-ctl -S:
> > 
> >     0x20df10ef (POWER_KEY for my LG tv)
> >     0x02FD48B7 (POWER_KEY for my Toshiba tv)
> 
> As you can see here https://www.sbprojects.net/knowledge/ir/nec.php the
> nec protocol has an inverted address (2nd byte) and inverted command
> (3rd byte). The inverted values are not in regular nec scancodes for ir-ctl,
> as they are redundant.
> 
> So the first values would be "ir-ctl -S nec:0x2010" and the second one
> "ir-ctl -s nec:0x0248".
> 
> > rc6_mce:0x800f0410 works, as does nec32:0x800f0410 (though not
> > nec:0x800f0410), so it doesn't seem to be an issue with 32-bit codes.
> > 
> > I use AnalysIR, and it indicates the protocol is NEC for the above codes,
> > though irdb.tk indicates the protocol is NEC1.
> > 
> > 1) is there a description of the various protocols? (how can I know if I
> > should use nec or nec32, with a 32 bit value?)
> 
> There isn't any documentation, although we could really use some. I'll try
> to write something up when I get some time. In the mean time, you
> can see a list of the protocols to and bitmask here:
> 
> https://git.linuxtv.org/v4l-utils.git/tree/utils/common/ir-encode.c#n344
> 
> So the scancode_mask shows which bits are actually valid; if any bits
> outside of the mask are set, ir-ctl will say the scancode is invalid.
> 
> So for nec any value between 0 and 0xffff is valid; necx it is 0 to 0xffffff
> and nec32 it is 0 to 0xffffffff.
> 
> > 2) are my scancodes failing to work, because they are (possibly) NEC1
> > protocol?
> 
> I'm not sure what the nec1 protocol is exactly. This sounds like a AnalysIR
> invention.
> 
> > 
> > 3) if NEC1 is not the same as nec or nec32, is it scheduled to be added to
> > ir-ctl in the near future?
> 
> Please let me know how you get on with the above.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Sean
> 
>   

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2019-07-22 13:26 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-07-19 11:50 scancodes identified as invalid JohnG
2019-07-21 19:36 ` Sean Young
     [not found]   ` <1981366943.5122868.1563752034290@mail.yahoo.com>
2019-07-22  5:22     ` Sean Young
     [not found]   ` <1881197532.5237588.1563795842895@mail.yahoo.com>
2019-07-22 13:26     ` scancodes identified as invalid (I found the problem) Sean Young

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).