[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ailing gpm - tp380ED



On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 10:49:36AM -0800, Jeff Coppock wrote:
> I just checked my version:
> 
> gpm-Linux 1.17.8, $Date: 1999/01/03 21:02:51 $
> 
> jc
> 
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 09:49:56AM -0800, JParker@coinstar.com wrote:
> > 
> > G'Day ! 
> > 
> > Perhaps I was using an old GPM library .... A couple of years ago back
> > when I upgraded to XF86 3.x,  GPM and X conflicted.  I always had to
> > kill the GPM demaon, before starting X. 
> > 
> > I guess this was fixed.
> > 
> > cheers,
> > Jim Parker

 GPM never conflicted with X, except maybe before it supported the repeater
option.  The problem has always been that the PS/2 device driver only allows
a single process to open the device and read events, IIRC.  The serial
driver is different.  gpm and X can both open /dev/mouse simultaneously if
it is linked to ttyS0.  (I don't know whether they both get a copy of the
mouse data, or whether gpm gets some and X gets some.  If the latter is the
case, it wouldn't work anyway.  Oh well.)  I've always used gpm in repeater
mode with my serial mice, since I've got one with 3 buttons that gets reset
to microsoft protocol unless I hold down the left button when something
opens the device. (The control lines on the serial port are toggled on
device open, or something.)  Since I want it to stay in MouseSystems
protocol mode for 3 button support, I don't want the X server openning the
device when I start it.  (I sometimes like to bounce between console and X.)

 Anyway, my point is that GPM has been working like this for over 2 years, I
think.  It's all about configuring it right, not some recent feature.
(Unless it's even smarter now...)

-- 
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ;  e-mail: X(peter@llama.nslug. , ns.ca)

"The gods confound the man who first found out how to distinguish the hours!
 Confound him, too, who in this place set up a sundial, to cut and hack
 my day so wretchedly into small pieces!" -- Plautus, 200 BCE



Reply to: