On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:13:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Well, we already produce KEY_UNKNOWN anyway, and the stuff you quoted above > just makes KEY_UNKNOWN useful for something instead of keeping it as an > useless notice to the user that some key (which one? who knows!) was > pressed. Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN. Adding extra information to the event doesn't alter that. > Perhaps what you dislike re. KEY_UNKNOWN is the part where KEY_UNKNOWN+scan > code is declared to be the prefered way to report keys that do not have a > specific function? Your reply seems to indicate this, but I am not sure I > really understood what you meant. Yes. > I am not exactly in love with the idea of using KEY_UNKNOWN in place of > stuff like KEY_FN_F1 either (I'd prefer to just bump up KEY_MAX and have > more posicional keycodes), but Dmitry is being quite clear that he does not > want to increase KEY_MAX to add more positional keycodes. I think using positional keycodes would also be a mistake. We just need a slightly larger set of keycodes representing user-definable keys. There's 4 of them already - I really can't imagine there being many keyboards with a significantly larger set of unlabelled keys. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
