On 29/03/14 16:11, David Härdeman wrote:
The generic scancode filtering has questionable value and makes it
impossible to determine from userspace if there is an actual
scancode hw filter present or not.
So revert the generic parts.
Based on a patch from James Hogan
On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:29:53AM +0100, James Hogan wrote:
On 29/03/14 16:11, David Härdeman wrote:
The generic scancode filtering has questionable value and makes it
impossible to determine from userspace if there is an actual
scancode hw filter present or not.
So revert the generic
On Monday 31 March 2014 21:38:13 David Härdeman wrote:
The rest looks reasonable, though it could easily have been a separate
patch (at least as long as the show/store callbacks don't assume the
presence of the callbacks they use).
Yes, I wanted to avoid there being more intermediary states
The generic scancode filtering has questionable value and makes it
impossible to determine from userspace if there is an actual
scancode hw filter present or not.
So revert the generic parts.
Based on a patch from James Hogan james.ho...@imgtec.com, but this
version also makes sure that only the
