Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754010AbXJWPyn (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:54:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753855AbXJWPyd (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:54:33 -0400 Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.191]:1864 "EHLO nf-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751684AbXJWPyc (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:54:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ptsWuxcs+S7LNHm2MgFX72TkDhQUzkR4WI+66nQFr8h92t8H65wmj7i688kihVLmv1l6xj2LPdRwo7j3Q0dKypTjW79BuZHtnEG87NUJffY+3FgBddeXWqGNFy/rn2hEQdkMT7p+OZjCyPWNnD4lafJNjzd9LA8itPoygZTq3hk= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:54:29 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Henrique de Moraes Holschuh" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Map volume and brightness events on thinkpads Cc: "Matthew Garrett" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Jeremy Katz" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davej@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <20071018223915.GA4483@khazad-dum.debian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071016184606.GB25181@srcf.ucam.org> <20071017162827.GA9778@srcf.ucam.org> <20071017173532.GB2974@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20071017204250.GA13377@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20071018223915.GA4483@khazad-dum.debian.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1689 Lines: 40 On 10/18/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 10/17/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > > Still, I was > > > thinking about it, and a doubt came to mind: would it cause problems for a > > > bitmap to share the function for EV_foo and EV_foo notifications? > > > > Not sure if I follow... Are you talking about bringing KEY_*_NOTIFY > > into EV_KEY "namespace"? Could you elaborate? > > Suppose we define a "EV_* is a notify event" bit to set in the event type > field of an input event. > > Now, any type of event can be a notify event or a normal event, depending on > wether this bit is set. > > However, the input layer keeps track of which events of a given type can be > sent by an input device using bitmaps, for every type of event. And this > bitmap now would mean "input device may issue a normal event or a notify > event", not just "input device may issue a normal event". > > I am not sure if that would cause trouble? > Like I said this would prevent userspace to know true capabilities of the input device in question. Probably simply adding separate key notify events (such as KEY_BRIGHTNESSUP_NOTIFY) to EV_KEY instead of creating EV_NOTIFY is not such a bad idea - this way we can fix keymap from userspace (if needed) instead of needing to modify the krenel. So, EV_KEY (and extending KEY_MAX to 1024) or EV_NOTIFY? -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/