[RFC] Automatic modifier update of slave devices

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On 24 February 2014 21:28, Keith Packard <keithp at keithp.com> wrote:
> Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> writes:
>> whilst not doing anything surprising like having a base modifier down
>> which was never pressed on that device.
>
> Are you saying that we should only mirror the locking modifier state
> From master to slaves? That seems plausible, but seems more complicated
> and not all that useful to me, as now the slave will report some, but
> not all, of the master modifier state.

I'm suggesting the minimal change possible to solve the stated problem
(which is essentially that new slaves don't inherit the LED - i.e.
lock - state of their masters). I'm pretty wary of the full push to
always push master state down to slaves, especially given the fact
that slaves may have wholly disjoint keymaps to their masters.  The
latter was an incredibly dumb idea in hindsight and can almost never
produce meaningful results in practice, but hey, what can you do.

Cheers,
Daniel