Garrett D'Amore wrote: > Kerry Shu wrote: >> >> >> Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: >>>> So, while I do wish that an easier user configuration were available >>>> for these ACPI events (the first of those translations), or that the >>>> industry had standardized a bit more here, the reality is that this >>>> probably isn't practical, at least not at this point. >>> >>> It would also be very nice if you want to create such keys for your >>> laptop, that there's a standard interface you can do in the kernel. >>> >>> I.e., make the platform specific modules very simple to make and put >>> the smarts in a different module. >> >> Yes, the platform specific module (hotkey driver) is simple. So is the >> interface (we use sysevent). Hotkey driver is responsible to tell which >> hotkey is pressed and generates corresponding hotkey sysevent (by >> calling ddi_log_sysevent()). The hotkey keymapping work is done in >> Xserver. > > Do I think that all we need to document as the interface these modules > use is: > > 1) the actual event names (and any payload details) > 2) ideally, if there is some interface to ACPI itself that these modules > should use, then those details. > > Anyway, I'm not too worried at the moment... both of those sets of > details can just be Project Private for now. (Is that what how they're > classified in the materials?)
Yes, 1) is classified as Project Private for now. We've listed current defined subclass. for 2), we uses acpica interface(PSARC/1998/300). It's project private. Regards, Kerry
