Hi Jiri, On 4/23/07, Jiri Slaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a): > For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove > - I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old > phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may > still use input layer to report back coordinates.And how about the individual FF ioctl? Did you mean registering another chardev, which is totally ugly in my eyes or augment evdev.c to support driver specific ioctl? i.e. either add another 'E' ioctl with pointer to struct { code, value } as arg param or changing if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != 'E')) return -EINVAL; to sth. like if (_IOC_TYPE(cmd) != 'E')) return dev->ioctl ? dev->ioctl(file, cmd, p) : -EINVAL; in evdev_ioctl_handler, which is acceptable?
I really do not want to have driver-specific ioctls attaching to evdev. What is wrong with a separate device to control phantom? You won't even have to use ioctl but regial write on it. -- 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/
