On Fri, 17.06.11 14:51, Takashi Iwai (tiwai@xxxxxxx) wrote: > > At Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:45:52 +0200, > Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > > On Fri, 17.06.11 14:42, Takashi Iwai (tiwai@xxxxxxx) wrote: > > > > > > If you have the patches ready to convert all drivers which currently can > > > > do jack sensing over to the new scheme with control elements, then we > > > > should probably focus on that for the future, shouldn't we? > > > > > > For PA work, I suppose so (although I won't object to someone working > > > on the implementation with the present input-jack layer :) > > > But you can see David's patch basically independent from PA. > > > > Well, but I'd guess that the access permissions only really matter for > > PA, right? > > Not really. For example, I was asked about the input-jack stuff by > a couple of vendors for their own products, apparently running without > PA. Well, but the point I am trying to make: the embedded vendors are not interested in the automatic udev ACL management for the jack sensing input devices, right? That means the udev patch is really and only relevant for usage in PA on desktops. > > So if we say that proper jack sensing via control elements is > > the way to go, then PA should adopt this new scheme and this new scheme > > only, and not bother with the input device cruft, and the udev patch > > should not be merged either as PA would be its only consumer... > > I would be against the patch if the change were too intrusive, > but this change itself looks small enough to me. > The question whether PA should use it or not is a different thing. As I understand Kay he's quite keen on keeping the number of default udev rules small, especially with stuff that people might then start to rely on. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
