[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <484638e2-1565-454b-97f8-4fcc6514a69c@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 21:50:37 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Mark Pearson <mpearson-lenovo@...ebb.ca>
Cc: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...hat.com>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
ibm-acpi-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
"platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org" <platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nitin Joshi1 <njoshi1@...ovo.com>, Vishnu Sankar <vsankar@...ovo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Input: Add trackpoint doubletap and system debug info
keycodes
Hi,
On 4/15/24 9:40 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:48:10PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>
>> I have a stronger preference to keep the KEY_DOUBLECLICK - that one seems less controversial as a genuine new input event.
>
> Please see my response to Peter's letter. I think it very much depends
> on how it will be used (associated with the pointer or standalone as it
> is now).
>
> For standalone application, recalling your statement that on Win you
> have this gesture invoke configuration utility I would argue for
> KEY_CONFIG for it.
KEY_CONFIG is already generated by Fn + F# on some ThinkPads to launch
the GNOME/KDE control center/panel and I believe that at least GNOME
comes with a default binding to map KEY_CONFIG to the control-center.
So IMHO re-using KEY_CONFIG for the doubletap trackpoint thing is not
a good idea. But as mentioned elsewhere in the thread everyone seems
to be ok with using KEY_VENDOR for this ?
Regards,
Hans
Powered by blists - more mailing lists