On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Li Yu wrote: > Under standard HID device driver development means, we need to write > one interrupt handler for each new HID device to report event to input > subsystem. However, although the most of they can not merge into > mainstream kernel tree, they have only some extended keys, e.g. many > remote controllers. I think it seem break a fly on the wheel, which > write one new interrupt handler for this reason.
This paragraph I don't seem to understand. Either the device is claimed by hid-input (*), and then when the device is behaving more-or-less correctly, hid-input handles the usages sent in reports and maps them properly to input events. New mapping can be quite trivially added to hid-input. If the HID device is not claimed by hid-input, then userspace can access the hid events through hiddev and perform any actions that are needed. Could you please elaborate a little bit more why your approach using "simple HID interface" is better than for example hiddev+uinput, done completely in userspace? In addition to that, as I stated in some previous e-mail, I am currently working on new 'hidraw' interface, which will provide more flexibility to userland applications willing to operate on raw HID data, than they currently have with hiddev. (*) OK, I would tend to agree that the algorithm which decides whether the given device will be claimed by hid-input driver could be improved to be more HID-specification and HUT compliant. I have this in my TODO, but I guess it doesn't matter too much here. Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
