[RFC] Automatic modifier update of slave devices

[Keith Packard]

Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> writes:

> yeah, it does seem like the most sensible behaviour but right now the
> keyboards are completely independent and the event routing is based on that.
> so if you hit ctrl on one keyboard, alt on the other, the master will have
> ctrl+alt down, while each keyboard only has either modifier set.
> somewhat similar to the button state.

There is an obvious difference between locking and non-locking
modifiers. One can imagine wanting to update only the locking modifier
state and associated indicators and leaving the state of the non-locking
modifiers alone, so that hitting Shift on one keyboard would not be
visible if monitoring another slave keyboard device, but that NumLock
*would* be mirrored across slaves connected to the same master. On
second thought, that's a crazy plan.

I'd say the correct semantic is for the slave device to report the same
modifier state through either the slave or master device, and so the
only sensible plan is to mirror the modifier state across all slave
keyboards. Otherwise, why would you have tied the two slaves to the same master?

-- 
keith.packard at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 810 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel/attachments/20140223/614796ec/attachment.pgp>