On 5/30/07, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:18:17AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > >We've already got KEY_PROG* - is this not the sort of situation they're > > >for? (ie, keys that aren't mapped to a specific purpose but would be > > >potentially useful to userspace at the per-user level) > > > > > > > Right. These are they keys "we have no idea how to use these, leave it > > to the user". Do we really need more of these? We have quite a few > > codes that might be useful. I just don't want to keep adding a new > > input keycode every time we encounter an unmarked key somewhere. > > Sorry, I wasn't clear - I was thinking that they should just be used for > this case, rather than that more of them be added. > Ah, OK. > > >Changing the keymap is a privileged operation, so sending /some/ sort of > > >keycode by default would probably be good. > > > > > > > It's up to the security policy on a particular box. One could change > > /dev/input/evdev ownership to the user currently logged on physical > > console. > > Most users will be logged into X, so it's the X keymap that's the most > interesting one. X tools know how to remap the X keymap without > requiring any sort of special privileges, so all we need is for the > keycode to generate /something/. I think KEY_PROG* would make the most > sense, and that's what we've adopted in Ubuntu. Not all world is X :) Actually few of "FN" keys, like KEY_WLAN, KEY_SLEEP, etc should be handled not [only] by X but by other layers. -- Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
