On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:33:54PM -0800, James Simmons wrote: > > > > do get the impression that is what those feilds are for. Look at the > > > confussion on this list about this. > > > > Yes, I should document this better somewhere. But you agree that what's > > done is the sane thing? > > Yes!!
Thanks for confirmation. :) > > > Hm. The issue with that is userland might pass in really off values. Then > > > any calibration is really screwed. Oh I guess if someone does something > > > that dumb oh wells. It doesn't bring the system down. > > > > Exactly. And there is always permissions on the device file, by which > > you can control who has access to both the event data and settings of > > the ranges. > > BTW one of the ideas for handling topology I like is the idea of having > different groups for different desktops for multi-desktop systems. You > could have desktop0, desktop1 etc. This way you don't end up playing > a mp3 on someone else sound card. You can have multiple sound cards as > well and you can assign each one to a particular group. Same with > joysticks etc. Yes, this sounds good. It's an userspace thing, though. Our job now is just to allow it. :) > > > True. What I was purposing was to make it pre process. Of course this gets > > > more complex. > > > > How do you make LED state per process? I deem that impossible. > > Only for things that make sense. For example the force feedback state > might be nice to have per process. Hm, does XInput handle states per > client? I'm not sure about FF. I can't imagine sharing a FF device by more than one client process. What if the forces are contradictory? -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs _______________________________________________ Xpert mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/xpert
