On 10/16/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > > > > It still doesn't mean it belongs inside the stream of data for the > > > keyboard, > > > maskerading as a key press. > > > > But it *is* a key press! > > To get somewhat back on track: volume and brightness (and similar - lid > close etc) events clearly are keypresses. > > However, I would also argue that a keypress that is acted on by the > firmware automatically is *different* from a keypress that hasn't been > acted on: one is a "key was pressed *and* hardware did something > automatically", and the other is just a "key was pressed" event. > > IOW, I think the thinkpad issue (and others like it) should be fixed by > splitting up the KEY_VOLUMEUP "key" into separate KEY_VOLUMEUP and > KEY_VOLUMEUP_NOTIFY key events, so that downstream user mode (and the > kernel itself, for that matter) can know whether it's a informational > message or whether it should be acted upon.
I agree that these are 2 different events. My argument is that "VOLUME_UP_NOTIFY" event is similar to "BATTERY_OUT_NOTIFY", "DOCK_UNDOCK_NOTIFY", etc, etc and should be sent not through input layer but through a generic (yet to be designed) notification mechanism. Something lighter than input. Something like uevents over netlink. -- 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/
