Ok, I 'll take this opportunity to prove xf86-input-wacom is responsive and give you all a break. I will also take care of both hal/libudev and xorg.conf. The fix will be ready for xorg 1.8 if my driver can be included. Fair?
Ping On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Daniel Stone <dan...@fooishbar.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 06:19:10PM -0700, Ping wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net > >wrote: > > > > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/linuxwacom/devel/linuxwacom-0.8.2.2-HAL.patch?revision=1.1&view=markup > > > not for the faint of heart. > > > > > > when cleaning up you have to make sure you're only cleaning up those > > > devices > > > that you've initialized yourself, otherwise you're going to top the > server. > > > i'm not sure if I can recommend the above at all, mjg59's HAL trickery > was > > > a > > > lot nicer but then again, udev. > > > > Then, my question is: can we assume, with xserver 1.8 and later, > > xf86WcmInit (the device initialization routine) will only be called by > your > > libudev input-hotplug mechanism? Or in another phase: do you still allow > > users to define input devices through xorg.conf? > > > > If xf86-input-wacom will only be Init'ed by libudev input-hotplug, I can > > "fix" my driver by creating all devices inside the Init. Then the driver > > will cleanup itself in UnInit. I think I like this approach if you guys > are > > willing to take the risk of Wacom blowing up the server :). > > I'd like to finally fix up our device API so these kinds of hacks are no > longer necessary, but to be honest I'd suspect this may end up creeping > into 1.9 rather than 1.8. > > NewInputDeviceRequest is completely fine to call from your driver: don't > be scared by all the failure messages you'd find about it. :) Just > construct a reasonable set of options lists (including 'Driver > "wacom"'), and you should be fine. > > I don't think xorg.conf will ever die, but yes, you can safely do this > by checking the option named '_source'. If it's server/hal or > server/libudev (I think -- you'd have to check Julien's patch to make > fully sure), then you're being called from either hal or udev. If not, > then it's almost certainly xorg.conf. > > Cheers, > Daniel >
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list xorg-devel@lists.x.org http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel