On Tue, 2018-01-02 at 22:54 +0100, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Wednesday 04 January 2017 15:37:35 Bastien Nocera wrote: > > I don't doubt that the use cases should be catered for, I > > essentially > > did that same work without kernel changes for GNOME. What I doubt > > is > > the fuzzy semantics, the fact that the device is kept opened but no > > data is sent (that's not power saving), that whether users are > > revoked > > or should be revoked isn't clear, and that the goal is basically to > > work around stupid input handling when at the console. When running > > a > > display manager, this is all avoided. > > > > If this were to go through, then the semantics and behaviour needs > > to > > be better explained, power saving actually made possible, and make > > sure > > that libinput can proxy that state to the users on the console. Or > > an > > ioctl added to the evdev device to disable them. > > So, do you mean to implement this "disable" action as ioctl for > particular /dev/input/event* device (instead of sysfs entry)? Yes, so the device can be powered down without the device node being closed and made unavailable. I don't know whether that's something that's already possible for all cases, but there's already opportunistic in a lot of drivers and subsystems. This opens up a whole new wave of potential problems, but it's a more generally useful mechanism, I would think. -- 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
