On 19 November 2010 11:07, Ben Armstrong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, that hack was apparently used *instead of* passing 'hotkey' not in > addition to. So is it really correct to change $3 to $2 as you have > just done? I don't think so ... $2 will just be 'hotkey'. I did two things: First, I modified the event file (that I had just copied from an old revision) and removed the dash before %e (that gets expanded to the event name). That was a hack to shift the button name (instead of code) to $3, but now it's useless since we are not bound any more to a fixed parameter position. I therefore changed $3 to $2. This is just a style fix and doesn't change anything in the behaviour. Second, I fixed the call to hotkey.sh, eliminating the offending dash. If you look at the line /usr/share/acpi-support/eeepc-acpi-scripts/hotkey.sh hotkey ASUS010:00 $hotkey $4 you can see that the hotkey code is indeed the third parameter, i.e. the one that hotkey.sh checks. $4 is the event counter, which we don't use, but I put it there for consistency. > Upstream can make those keys do whatever he wants, so I don't think this > is the reason. But I suspect they are managed at a more general level (ACPI subsystem), so I don't know how freely new buttons can be added. Cheers, Luca _______________________________________________ Debian-eeepc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/debian-eeepc-devel
