On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 09:23:02AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > > > However I don't see why the repeat vs. no repeat case should depend on > > > the device reporting or not reporting keyboard keys. I don't see any > > > real connection with a device having some keyboard keys and sending > > > repeat events for buttons. > > The problem is, that currently EV_REP is per-device flag. Once we set > > it, it is valid for all EV_KEY events (which includes keyboard events, > > but also mouse buttons). > > I think it might be good to redesign this a little bit, but I'd like to > > hear Dmitry's opinion here, let's see when he will appear. > > Dmitry, > > do you have any opinion/idea what might be the best soltuion please? > I think that for now it is driver's responsibility to implement "fancy" autorepeat, if needed. I think good implementation should respect repeat rate settings requested from userspace though... If there are lots of drivers implementing autorepeat themselves and we start seeing common patterns we could start moving it to the core, probably by implementing some helper functions. Does this make sense? -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
