On 10/16/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > 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. > > Well, I'd argue that: > > - it's going to be the same entity that cares in both cases (ie anybody > who is ready to accept VOLUME_UP keypresses is also the exact same > party that also wants to know if VOLUME_UP happened *independently*) > > Ergo: making it a separate "generic" notification is actually totally > counterproductive, because it just adds complexity.
That is a good argument. If there are no other users for this other transport then I agree, inventing it just for keypress notifications is bad idea. > - it really is a keypress. Yes, it's a keypress with side effects, but > it still tends to have a distinct source, and as such it is interesting > *as* a keypress. > > IOW: it should have all the same "incidental" side effects as any other > keypress. Example: I think it's reasonable to consider it an event as > far as the screen saver is concerned. In other words, it's not *just* a > "volume was raised" event. It's a "volume was raised, and the user > actually pressed a key to do so". > This is a good argument for having 2 separate types of events but not for which transport shoudl be used to deliver it. > So I do think they are keypresses, although I also suspect that like many > other magical keys, the "NOTIFY" version is often also totally hidden by > hardware/firmware interactions (ie I'm pretty sure that many of those > special keys will never be visible at all to the OS, because the firmware > hides the fact that they were pressed entirely!) > Yes, on my old Inspiron brightness is completely handled by firmware. There is no ACPI, nor keyboard events generated whatsoever. OK, I guess I would like to hear once again from userspace guys - DBUS/HAL/etc. Do they see a need for a generic interface that can be used for all kinds of events, not only related to keypresses. If they say that they only care about notifications arising from keypresses then I will add EV_NOTIFY type of events to input layer. What events would we need? I can imagine: KEY_BRIGHTNESSUP_NOTIFY KEY_BRIGHTNESSDOWN_NOTIFY KEY_BRIGHTNESSMIN_NOTIFY KEY_BRIGHTNESSMAX_NOTIFY KEY_VOLUMEUP_NOTIFY KEY_VOLUMEDOWN_NOTIFY KEY_MUTE_NOTIFY KEY_DISPLAYSWITCH_NOTIFY KEY_WIFI_NOTIFY What else? And it better have "key" in its name, BATTERY_OUT_NOTIFY won't fly ;) -- 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/
