From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Reitmayr Subject: Usage of new KEY_NUMERIC_* codes in an existing driver (yealink) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:01:28 +0200 Message-ID: <1219424488.6684.20.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtpgw01.world4you.com ([80.243.163.21]:38445 "EHLO smtpgw01.world4you.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756590AbYHVTpI (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:45:08 -0400 Received: from [85.127.158.181] (helo=[192.168.1.76]) by smtpgw01.world4you.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KWa0v-0004hk-Ls for linux-input@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:01:37 +0200 Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Linux-Input Hi, I am in the process of extending the existing yealink driver, partly to support various other models. The existing driver as included in the current kernel uses the shift key to report the keys "*" and "#", but I am hesitating to do the same bad "trick" for the other models. As I would like to eventually submit the extended driver upstream, what is the recommended strategy in my situation regarding usage of the new KEY_NUMERIC_* codes? Use them only for the new models (which would result in an ugly mix), or also update the codes for the existing USB-P1K model (which would break userspace programs but finally fix things for some foreign keyboard layouts), or for the existing USB-P1K model report the old and the new codes (which might look like two key presses)? Thanks for your advice, -Thomas PS: The updated driver is available at http://www.devbase.at/svn/view.cgi/yealink-module/trunk/?root=voip (still including #if's reg. kernel versions, some comments to be corrected, etc.)