Hi On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Nestor Lopez Casado <nlopezcasad@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > A device with one mouse collection and one vendor collection would > give something like this: > /dev/input/eventX (no change) this comes via hid-input > /dev/mouse (no change) > /dev/hidrawX (no change) (all reports still show up here) > /dev/hidcolX (reports from corresponding colX will show up here) > > So only top level vendor collections which are not parsed (claimed) by > any hid-xx module today would appear under hidcolX. I still think you should do that in user-space. That is, whatever daemon opens the input-device should provide this abstraction (like via XInput2 etc.). Otherwise, someone else pops up and tells us a specific non-vendor extension is also unprivileged and wants them as separate interface. There is no clear split how fine-grained the access-control should be. Yes, you might have a specific example, but we don't want to make that a generic interface. Thanks David -- 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
