On 3/5/07, Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Li Yu wrote: > > > Under standard HID device driver development means, we need to write > > one interrupt handler for each new HID device to report event to input > > subsystem. However, although the most of they can not merge into > > mainstream kernel tree, they have only some extended keys, e.g. many > > remote controllers. I think it seem break a fly on the wheel, which > > write one new interrupt handler for this reason. > > This paragraph I don't seem to understand. Either the device is claimed by > hid-input (*), and then when the device is behaving more-or-less > correctly, hid-input handles the usages sent in reports and maps them > properly to input events. New mapping can be quite trivially added to > hid-input. >
We are running out if quirks and we can't continue in this fashion so Li tried to provide mechanism to augment default HID behaviour for sepcific devices. However I don't think we want this particular implementation - it firrces sub-drivers to be compiled into HID driver which may grow indefinitely. If we define HID "bus" allowing drivers to bind on VID:PID and provide default library module for parsing HID reports and providing access to HID transports (USB/BT) then writing tiny drivers adjusting just a part of hid_input_event and relying on default implemenattaion where it makes sense will become a breeze. -- Dmitry ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
