On Friday 01 June 2007 00:08, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:33:10PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thursday 31 May 2007 21:44, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > It's not trivial at all. You need to introduce a mechanism for noting a
> > > KEY_UNKNOWN keypress. It then needs
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 11:33:10PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thursday 31 May 2007 21:44, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > It's not trivial at all. You need to introduce a mechanism for noting a
> > KEY_UNKNOWN keypress. It then needs to signal the user (dbus is probably
> > the best layer for
On Thursday 31 May 2007 21:44, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:29:28PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN.
> > > Adding extra information to the even
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:29:28PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN.
> > > Adding extra information to the event doesn't
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 10:29:28PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN.
> > Adding extra information to the event doesn't alter that.
>
> It will not break anything, and it
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:13:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Well, we already produce KEY_UNKNOWN anyway, and the stuff you quoted above
> > just makes KEY_UNKNOWN useful for something instead of keeping it as an
> > useless notice t
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:13:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Well, we already produce KEY_UNKNOWN anyway, and the stuff you quoted above
> just makes KEY_UNKNOWN useful for something instead of keeping it as an
> useless notice to the user that some key (which one? who knows!) wa
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:28:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > We have all the pieces needed to have sane, generic userland keyboard
> > handling
> > in place for a while now, but it was not sufficiently documented (or used!).
> >
>
On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 07:28:14PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> We have all the pieces needed to have sane, generic userland keyboard handling
> in place for a while now, but it was not sufficiently documented (or used!).
>
> If EV_KEY input drivers always generate scan codes that c
We have all the pieces needed to have sane, generic userland keyboard handling
in place for a while now, but it was not sufficiently documented (or used!).
If EV_KEY input drivers always generate scan codes that can be used to
reprogram their keycode maps, and always generate EV_MSC MSC_SCAN event
On Wednesday 30 May 2007 20:53, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 5/30/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >It is trivial to guarantee that KEY_PROG is unique for a single input
> > >device (keyboard), but it certainly
On 5/31/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Richard Hughes wrote:
I am on it on the thinkpad-acpi side, so at least for that, you don't have
to worry. I am still waiting an answer about which event is the correct one
to output scancodes, but the think
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 21:53 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Maybe we can add that requirement and driver changes (if any, for all
> > I know most drivers might already be generating such events) for
> > 2.6.23? I bet Richard would like tha
This patch adds support for simulating a mouse using GPIO lines.
The driver needs a platform_data struct to be defined and registered with the
appropriate platform_device.
The driver has been tested on AT32AP7000 microprocessor using the ATSTK1000
development board.
Signed-off-by: Hans-Christian
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 21:53 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Maybe we can add that requirement and driver changes (if any, for all
> I know most drivers might already be generating such events) for
> 2.6.23? I bet Richard would like that one a lot. Richard?
To be honest, I've got lost
Hi Brian,
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Brian Magnuson wrote:
Hi Jan,
Here's the wireless controller patch rebased against the most
recent xpad.c. It's a bit slimmer this time. :)
One thing I noticed is that the analog joysticks appear to be inverted
from what I would expect. i.e. they operate in "f
16 matches
Mail list logo
