From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932314AbeDWSxa (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:53:30 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:34899 "EHLO mail-pf0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932085AbeDWSx3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2018 14:53:29 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx48lpmJePFWOYAksFgt20wFnKJ3OX3IdZiviw0oIxP5e0Jr3OfbM0XC8DMEJtYvi44KelLlUHA== Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 11:53:25 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Oleksandr Andrushchenko Cc: Juergen Gross , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lyan@suse.com, boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, andrii_chepurnyi@epam.com, Oleksandr Andrushchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration Message-ID: <20180423185325.GB66646@dtor-ws> References: <20180418150445.9805-1-andr2000@gmail.com> <2bff035e-303e-d644-5f51-5e64150c097c@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2bff035e-303e-d644-5f51-5e64150c097c@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 02:44:19PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > On 04/19/2018 02:25 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: > > On 18/04/18 17:04, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote: > > > From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko > > > > > > It is now only possible to control if multi-touch virtual device > > > is created or not (via the corresponding XenStore entries), > > > but keyboard and pointer devices are always created. > > Why don't you want to go that route for keyboard and mouse, too? > > Or does this really make no sense? > Well, I would prefer not to touch anything outside Linux and > this driver. And these settings seem to be implementation specific. > So, this is why introduce Linux module parameters and don't extend > the kbdif protocol. Why do you consider this implementation specific? How other guests decide to forego creation of relative pointer device or keyboard-like device? You already have "features" for absolute pointing device and multitouch, so please extend the protocol properly so you indeed do not code something implementation-specific (i.e. module parameters). Thanks. -- Dmitry