From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] HP WMI hotkey driver, RFKill query? Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 01:49:47 +0000 Message-ID: <20080116014947.GA7101@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20071218235137.12838.75397.stgit@localhost> <200801142225.11066.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> <20080115155215.ZZRA012@mailhub.coreip.homeip.net> <200801160138.36347.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200801160138.36347.carlos@strangeworlds.co.uk> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Carlos Corbacho Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Alexey Starikovskiy , linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:38:35AM +0000, Carlos Corbacho wrote: > The question is, would exporting the GUID virtual device and using that as the > parent make more sense? So, in the case of hp-wmi, it only uses the GUID > 95F24279-4D7B-4334-9387-ACCDC67EF61C, so should we use the virtual device > associated with that GUID as the parent, or just have WMI itself as the > parent device? I'm really not sure which would be the better way to go. It's possible for a driver to bind itself to multiple GUIDs, and I guess it's /potentially/ possible for a machine to have multiple event GUIDs. I'm not sure whether those should be created as separate input devices, or whether it would make sense for a driver to bind them into a single input driver. If the latter, wmi probably ought to be the parent? -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org