On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:07:27PM -0700, Ping Cheng wrote: > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 9:58 PM, Peter Hutterer > <peter.hutterer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > And yes, you could add it once we find it's an issue, but by then someone > >> > has already spent time to work around this. And when you then start sending > >> > slot events all the time, you admit that writing the workaround was just a > >> > time waster :) > >> > >> Work around what, exactly? > > > > I was referring to having a protocol where processes has to ignore contacts > > already down until they've been there when a contact was pressed (and your > > comment that if this becomes an issue it could be added lateron). > > Now, the ignoring part needs to be written (this is the "workaround" > > referred to above). if you're planning to add it later, we need to cater for > > that part as well then, having two implementations depending on the kernel > > versions. > > > > but this is just for clarification, it's a moot point anyway given that > > button events have the same behaviour. > > This topic is outside of the _MT_ protocol discussion. > > However, it is indeed an issue with all filtered input events, both > for MT and regular ones. > > I think we need to add an ioctl to enable user land driver/client to > signal the kernel driver to send all events without filtering, just > once. Hot-plugged devices and X driver starts after user has contacted > with the device are two examples that the client would miss filtered > events. > > Dmitry, do you think it is a valid suggestion? > What about using EVIOCGKEY/EVIOCGSW/EVIOCGABS? -- 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
