On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Jul 15, 2007 at 05:03:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > I do not consider screwing up the mixer handling a harmless result. > > We've shipped in this configuration for over a year. Total number of > bugs filed? None. It's not ideal, but it's simply not true that it > results in a high level of user confusion or a screwed up mixer. Well, I got one report. > > Until then, since the default meaning of *all* KEY_ events are active in > > nature, I am against the idea of generating events that are to be handled in > > a passive way, by default. > > That's simply not true. Userspace already interprets the brightness keys > differently depending on the hardware type. *HAL* does. HAL is *not* all there is to userspace. The input layer is not an interface between the kernel and HAL, it is an interface between kernel and userspace. Add that knowledge to the input layer, and I will agree. Add it to every consumer of input events, and I will concede. Until then, it is good that HAL can overcome the lack of such information in the input layer, but that doesn't make it the right way to use the input layer. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh - 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
