On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:19:04AM -0800, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > I think there's some confusion. > > There are three levels of mapping: > > 1) mapping some arbitrary ACPI event to a system event consumable by > userland > 2) mapping the system event to an X11 key event > 3) mapping the X11 key event to an action
I got that. > The first of these is highly platform-specific, and is what is driven by > the kernel configuration. Its not entirely clear to me that a table > driven approach *could* be used in the general case -- how each BIOS > enables and delivers ACPI events might be highly vendor specifc. I > don't know that this *is* the case, merely postulate that it *might* > be. Even if a table driven approach *were* possible, changing the > configuration would probably require fairly detailed knowledge of the > platform's BIOS -- well beyond the scope of what one might expect users > to be able to configure. I was under the impression that the ACPI event mechanism was generic but the symbolic assignments were not. If the event mechanism itself is not generic, then I agree that support for it will have to come from a kernel module and cannot be table driven. Nico --
