Re: [PATCH 2/2] input: mt: Document the MT event slot protocol (rev2)

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:07:27PM -0700, Ping Cheng wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Peter Hutterer
> <peter.hutterer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > And yes, you could add it once we find it's an issue, but by then someone
> >> > has already spent time to work around this. And when you then start sending
> >> > slot events all the time, you admit that writing the workaround was just a
> >> > time waster :)
> >>
> >> Work around what, exactly?
> >
> > I was referring to having a protocol where processes has to ignore contacts
> > already down until they've been there when a contact was pressed (and your
> > comment that if this becomes an issue it could be added lateron).
> > Now, the ignoring part needs to be written (this is the "workaround"
> > referred to above). if you're planning to add it later, we need to cater for
> > that part as well then, having two implementations depending on the kernel
> > versions.
> >
> > but this is just for clarification, it's a moot point anyway given that
> > button events have the same behaviour.
> 
> This topic is outside of the _MT_ protocol discussion.
> 
> However, it is indeed an issue with all filtered input events, both
> for MT and regular ones.
> 
> I think we need to add an ioctl to enable user land driver/client to
> signal the kernel driver to send all events without filtering, just
> once. Hot-plugged devices and X driver starts after user has contacted
> with the device are two examples that the client would miss filtered
> events.
> 
> Dmitry, do you think it is a valid suggestion?
>

What about using EVIOCGKEY/EVIOCGSW/EVIOCGABS?

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/