On 10/18/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 10/17/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Still, I was > > > thinking about it, and a doubt came to mind: would it cause problems for a > > > bitmap to share the function for EV_foo and EV_foo notifications? > > > > Not sure if I follow... Are you talking about bringing KEY_*_NOTIFY > > into EV_KEY "namespace"? Could you elaborate? > > Suppose we define a "EV_* is a notify event" bit to set in the event type > field of an input event. > > Now, any type of event can be a notify event or a normal event, depending on > wether this bit is set. > > However, the input layer keeps track of which events of a given type can be > sent by an input device using bitmaps, for every type of event. And this > bitmap now would mean "input device may issue a normal event or a notify > event", not just "input device may issue a normal event". > > I am not sure if that would cause trouble? >
Like I said this would prevent userspace to know true capabilities of the input device in question. Probably simply adding separate key notify events (such as KEY_BRIGHTNESSUP_NOTIFY) to EV_KEY instead of creating EV_NOTIFY is not such a bad idea - this way we can fix keymap from userspace (if needed) instead of needing to modify the krenel. So, EV_KEY (and extending KEY_MAX to 1024) or EV_NOTIFY? -- 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/
