Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 21 May 2009, Rafi Rubin wrote: > >> Is there any downside to letting hiddev to cover all devices, even those >> that are supported by the hid system? > > That's one of the possible solutions, yes. (we could either make that > behavior configurable, with default settings to always create hiddev > node, to preserve backwards compatibility with userspace). > Those codes are descriptions, not unique identifiers. It seems to me that sooner or later a conflict will arise over multiple devices with the same code where the driver writers for devices have differing philosophies. You could also leave a legacy version of IS_INPUT_APPLICATION with some old ranges for hiddev while letting hid-input use a version which is free to expand. But I think forking like that would be uglier than having hiddev nodes for all devices by default. As for a configurable solution, there's always the style used by serio_raw. Though, I think enabling hiddev shouldn't unbind the normal hid-input driver. Rafi -- 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
