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 | [email protected]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
