On 10/18/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 10/17/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@hmh.eng.br> 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
-
unsubscribe notice
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/