On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 14:54 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:55:53AM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > This is great. We will have a common protocol even if the "old" > > drivers are not up to date. > > > > I don't think we should change the current patchwork (or we may just > > remove the MT_SYNC handling when we will be sure that no one use it > > anymore). I had written these patches with the protocol B in mind: > > it's as simple as possible to handle protocol A without interfering > > with the B one: I have no tracking, no heavy computations, no > > states, etc... > > I agree, I think the patches should go in for now as they are. Then we can > introduce the dependency on mtdev. I'm somewhat hesitant to delay the > patches even further for a completely new project, the bottleneck that > I am ATM is bad enough.
I've been working with Henrik on mtdev support in the X evdev module, and I began sharing some of that work with Ben today. Ben and I seem to be on the same page, and we are working out some small bugs before we send a patch series on for review here. However, IMHO it would be easier if the previous patches for protocol A were not applied first. Ben, please feel free to chime in if you feel I've misrepresented the state of things. I think we can have a patch set ready for review by the end of this week. Thanks, -- Chase _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
