Is this reasonable?
----- Forwarded message from Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx> -----
From: Frans Pop <elendil@xxxxxxxxx>
To: udev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: udev: gpio-keys input driver should have class kbd
clone 524505 -1
reassign -1 udev 0.140-1
retitle -1 udev: gpio-keys input driver should have class kbd
severity -1 wishlist
block 524505 by -1
thanks
With udev 0.140 (or rather: sometime after 0.125) we've lost the
persistent device symlink /dev/input/by-path/platform-gpio-keys-event-
due to the following change in 60-persistent-input.rules which no longer
allows an empty ID_CLASS:
-KERNEL=="event*", ENV{ID_PATH}=="?*", \
+KERNEL=="event*", ENV{ID_PATH}=="?*", ENV{ID_CLASS}=="?*", \
SYMLINK+="input/by-path/$env{ID_PATH}-event-$env{ID_CLASS}"
This means that qcontrol in Debian unstable is now broken (see:
http://bugs.debian.org/524505).
It seems to me that the simplest solution is to let udev define a class
for gpio-keys (kbd seems most logical), for example with the following
change in 60-persistent-input.rules:
-DRIVERS=="atkbd", ENV{ID_CLASS}="kbd"
+DRIVERS=="atkbd|gpio-keys", ENV{ID_CLASS}="kbd"
We can then adjust qcontrol to use the new persistent device link.
If that change is acceptable, please also push it for udev upstream.
Thanks,
FJP
----- End forwarded message -----
--
ciao,
Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
