On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 10:22 +0100, Corentin Chary wrote: > >> > I understand this. I guess the question is whether people working on > >> > system infrastructure (dbus, Networkmanager, etc) care about having such > >> > functionality on Linux? The reason I am asking is that we added all > >> > KEY_WIMAX and so on defines but I am not usre if anyone wants them. > >> > >> KEY_WIMAX may not be used a lot because there is not a lot of device > >> with such a key, > >> I think this is not the case for KEY_WIRELESS_CYCLE. > >> > >> The bad thing is that we will need to patch X11 (and Qt, for > >> kde/solid) to make it works. > >> > >> Maybe we should Cc dbus/network manager/solid/linux-wireless ? > >> > > > > That would be a good idea. > > Here it is. > > Dear system infrastructure people, > Do you think a KEY_WIRELESS_CYCLE key would have any application ? Not really. The naming of the key ultimately will not matter one bit, because it'll be misnamed on most platforms anyway, unless we want to do DMI matching or something to name the key. And even then, if there's a wifi key but no bluetooth key, users may prefer to have the wifi key act as a cycle key instead. Therefore, this ought to all be policy in the rfkill daemon. rfkill-input will be going away as soon as somebody writes a simple daemon that allows doing such things, I really don't see us adding support for a cycle key to the kernel code, and for the userspace code it doesn't matter since users will configure it independent of the key code anyway. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part