Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:34:22 -0800 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] Staging:IIO: New ABI |
| |
On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:31:12PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 04:14:15PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 12:47:18PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 04:53:21PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > I am not aware of these. Could you direct me to the current api? Also note that these > > > > aren't the actual alarms, merely a means of enabling the relevant event on the related > > > > event character device. > > > > > > Hm, I thought we had an accelerator interface somewhere... > > > > > > > Nope. And I am also interested in this since I am sittign on a bunch of > > accelerometers, magnetometers, etc drivers that are trying to plug into > > input sysbsystem and quite unsure what to do with them. > > > > It was OK whch HDAPS and friends when they were using input for > > secondary, toyish purposes, but these new drivers trying to use input > > devnts as primary API and I am unsure if it is the best solution. > > Accelerometer might be used as an input device but not always an input > > device. > > Yeah, I see it using a joystick interface, which might be acceptable for > "toy" devices like you say. > > But for "real" ones, we should do something else. > > Maybe, for devices that are going to be used by x.org, like the "toy" > ones, we stick with the current input interface, but for others, we use > a "real" interface, probably through hwmon, so that users can get the > real data out in a consistant manner. >
I'd rather have all of them use real interface and then have a bridge to input module to enable toyish mode (unless the device in question is really truly an input device).
-- Dmitry
| |