On Sunday 01 April 2007 21:47, Li Yu wrote: > Let me explain the internal of my current HID bus implementation. I > think that selecting one user scene as example is good idea. > > Well, the user A plug a USB joystick into computer. The work processing > of HID subsystem for this joystick is same with our mind: The USB/base > driver works for it. However, the world is not faultless. This joystick > is buggy, its some keys need specific handling, our good friend udev > discover that there is also have another driver can handle it, so it > insert that kernel module, then our sweet leading role specific/shadow > HID driver appear on scene. Registering shadow driver let HID core clone > a hid_device first, and start new usage configuration processing for new > cloned hid_device (if we like, even I think we can reread reports from > physical device), the shadow driver can join with HID core to > custom/hook in this recofiguration processing. If this shadow driver is > input-able, the HID core will unregister working input device come from > USB/base hid_device, and register new input device for this shadow > hid_device. So we have not two input_dev for one HID device at same time. >
No, please don't do that. As soon as there is a special driver written for a device that device's VID/PID should be added to generic HID blacklist. This way udev will load the proper driver right away and there will not be any flip-flopping of input devices. > When user A remove this shadow driver, the USB/base driver should resume > work for this joystick, IOW, it should register back its input device again. > Why would we want to revert to using generic HID's implementation if we know that it is broken for that particular device??? -- Dmitry - 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/
