From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] dell-wmi Switch support and Tablet switch definition Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:40:09 +0100 Message-ID: <20090619194009.GA28382@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1245410112-13659-1-git-send-email-rafi@seas.upenn.edu> <20090619140228.GA21354@srcf.ucam.org> <4A3BE6F0.7090107@seas.upenn.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:54762 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbZFSTkL (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:40:11 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A3BE6F0.7090107@seas.upenn.edu> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Rafi Rubin Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 03:28:48PM -0400, Rafi Rubin wrote: > I agree polling the tablet state would be a good thing. But that does not mean we should not > support the signals until we are ready to support polling. > > If you are suggesting that we should not use an EV_SW because we will eventually poll the hardware > instead of keeping the state in software, then I have no problem with sending keys or other events. No, my point is that there's little benefit in providing EV_SW if the initial value is going to be wrong. Software simply can't depend on it. The code's absolutely fine, but there's a risk that it'll break otherwise working desktops until we know how to set the initial value. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org