Re: [linux-usb-devel] [DOC] The documentation for HID Simple DriverInterface 0.5.0

[Jiri Kosina]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Li Yu wrote:

>  Under standard HID device driver development means, we need to write 
> one interrupt handler for each new HID device to report event to input 
> subsystem. However, although the most of they can not merge into 
> mainstream kernel tree, they have only some extended keys, e.g. many 
> remote controllers. I think it seem break a fly on the wheel, which 
> write one new interrupt handler for this reason.

This paragraph I don't seem to understand. Either the device is claimed by 
hid-input (*), and then when the device is behaving more-or-less 
correctly, hid-input handles the usages sent in reports and maps them 
properly to input events. New mapping can be quite trivially added to 
hid-input.

If the HID device is not claimed by hid-input, then userspace can access 
the hid events through hiddev and perform any actions that are needed.

Could you please elaborate a little bit more why your approach using 
"simple HID interface" is better than for example hiddev+uinput, done 
completely in userspace?

In addition to that, as I stated in some previous e-mail, I am currently 
working on new 'hidraw' interface, which will provide more flexibility to 
userland applications willing to operate on raw HID data, than they 
currently have with hiddev.

(*) OK, I would tend to agree that the algorithm which decides whether the 
given device will be claimed by hid-input driver could be improved to be 
more HID-specification and HUT compliant. I have this in my TODO, but I 
guess it doesn't matter too much here.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/