From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [gpm] Untangling the sleep hotkey mess Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 01:09:05 -0500 Message-ID: <200601090109.05791.dtor_core@ameritech.net> References: <20060107172446.GA3092@srcf.ucam.org> <200601090007.43578.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20060109052407.GA4213@srcf.ucam.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060109052407.GA4213-1xO5oi07KQx4cg9Nei1l7Q@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-acpi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Richard Hughes , linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, gnome-power-manager-list-rDKQcyrBJuzYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, hal-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, desktop_portables-qjLDD68F18O7TbgM5vRIOg@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Monday 09 January 2006 00:24, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2006 at 12:07:43AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Why don't we create an input handler that would feed certain events > > from input layer to acpid via bus_acpi_generate_event(). > > I'm not convinced that making the input layer depend on ACPI (even > optionally) would go down terribly well. It also strikes me as *wrong* - > the sleep key on this keyboard has nothing to do with ACPI, whereas keys > presented through ACPI are still an input device. > The handler is just for compatibility with present installations. New installations will use the new interface, whatver it will be. But input layer will be a hub of sorts and I am arguing for ACPI to be converted to use input layer directly. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html