From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759642AbXFAAY5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 20:24:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751148AbXFAAYs (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 20:24:48 -0400 Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([217.147.92.49]:60788 "EHLO vavatch.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753151AbXFAAYr (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2007 20:24:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 01:24:35 +0100 From: Matthew Garrett To: Henrique de Moraes Holschuh Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Richard Hughes , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20070601002435.GA2621@srcf.ucam.org> References: <11802004861625-git-send-email-hmh@hmh.eng.br> <20070531005305.GC6883@khazad-dum.debian.net> <200705310033.51230.dtor@insightbb.com> <20070531222814.GB4076@khazad-dum.debian.net> <20070531233326.GA1947@srcf.ucam.org> <20070601001304.GB5407@khazad-dum.debian.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070601001304.GB5407@khazad-dum.debian.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.12-2006-07-14 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mjg59@codon.org.uk Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: document the proper usage of EV_KEY and KEY_UNKNOWN X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:35:45 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on vavatch.codon.org.uk) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:13:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > Well, we already produce KEY_UNKNOWN anyway, and the stuff you quoted above > just makes KEY_UNKNOWN useful for something instead of keeping it as an > useless notice to the user that some key (which one? who knows!) was > pressed. Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN. Adding extra information to the event doesn't alter that. > Perhaps what you dislike re. KEY_UNKNOWN is the part where KEY_UNKNOWN+scan > code is declared to be the prefered way to report keys that do not have a > specific function? Your reply seems to indicate this, but I am not sure I > really understood what you meant. Yes. > I am not exactly in love with the idea of using KEY_UNKNOWN in place of > stuff like KEY_FN_F1 either (I'd prefer to just bump up KEY_MAX and have > more posicional keycodes), but Dmitry is being quite clear that he does not > want to increase KEY_MAX to add more positional keycodes. I think using positional keycodes would also be a mistake. We just need a slightly larger set of keycodes representing user-definable keys. There's 4 of them already - I really can't imagine there being many keyboards with a significantly larger set of unlabelled keys. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org