Re: [PATCH] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko <andr2000@gmail.com>]

On 04/26/2018 10:16 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:55:19AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>> On 04/23/2018 09:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> 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 <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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).
>> Ok, but in order to preserve the default behavior, e.g.
>> pointer and keyboard devices are always created now, I'll have
>> to have reverse features in the protocol:
>>   - feature-no-pointer
>>   - feature-no-keyboard
>> The above may be set as a part of frontend's configuration and
>> if missed are considered to be set to false.
> I think you can have them as "feature-pointer" and "feature-keyboard"
> (no negation), but assume not present considered enabled. I.e.
>
> 	kbd = xenbus_read_unsigned(..., XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_KEYBOARD, 1);
> 	if (kbd) {
> 		...
Thank you for your comments,
could you please take a look at the patch [1] where I am trying
to change the corresponding Xen protocol to fit the requirements?
As we agreed I have to change the protocol first, so this patch is no 
longer valid
> 	}
>
> Thanks.
Thank you,
Oleksandr
[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg56094.html