On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 12:45 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > The patch was pretty good, I did not quite like the driver > registration code so I tried to clean it up. Cool, cheers. > What do you think about > the attached patch (not tested due to the lack of hardware). If you > are OK with it please add your signed-off-by because version of the > patch I grabbed did not have it. Attached patch looks good - I can't test it until next week, but looks logically correct to me. I would also like to add the oddball proc event notification system to the removal-schedule document, but this can be a fight for another day. > > > Also I don't think you want to use > > > KEY_BREAK. What is the expected function of that key? To lock the screen. We probably want to replace HCI_HKEY_BREAK with HCI_HKEY_LOCK, as the picture on the keys is a little padlock. > > It's a "lock" key, I really want KEY_LOCK added to input.h, but that > > might prove difficult. For now I've used KEY_CLEAR, yell if you think > > there's a better one to substitute or if you guys want me to add get a > > constant added to input.h. > > Iam still struggling with the purpose of the key. What would you > extect to happen when youser presses this key? Screen gets locked? > KEY_SCREENLOCK? KEY_SCREENSAVER? Either of these keys would be good to add. So yes, patch looks good, cheers for the improvements. Signed-off-by: Richard Hughes <richard@xxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks again, Richard. - 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
