Mohamed Ikbel Boulabiar wrote: > The hierarchy applied on multitouch isn't the best example to prove > benefits of it. > Hierarchy is useful with some complex input devices that have many > axes, many buttons some accelerometers, but that are hierarchical from > the source (integrality/separability ?). > Then providing them as hierarchy can be useful. I believe I see your's and Stephane's point. But while you argue about how to get the devices to userspace in a clean fashion, I argue about how to process arbitrary collection of devices in a clean fashion, once they get there. > The solution maybe to have other handlers to show virtual hierarchical > devices in another virtual devices folder in addition to the old way. > The handler read from the usual device file and provide other sources. > > Kernel modules will be then simple providing necessary input. And > complex handling will be in an additional layer. > User then will chose from where read the input : the old way or the > dynamic with handler special ways. I still have a feeling that the most workable, generic structure to impose on input devices in general, is the empty set. > It should not also be in X. > If things aren't in the kernel, they shouldn't so be in X by obligation. I completely agree -- the recent movement around xorg input, hal and udev clearly shows how badly input needs its own layer. Henrik -- 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
