On 5/30/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But I will still need to add keys, and I still think that a bunch of 32 or
> >so HOSTSPECIFIC keys is a very very good idea to have, *even* if I add some
> >model specific knowledge and already remap a few of the hot key keyboard to
> >less generic events where possible.
>
> I think that adding anything like HOSTSPECIFIC is a failure on our
> part. That means that you need to make programs out there aware of
Well, you have to choose one of three possibilities for an unlabelled key:
1. Generate SOMETHING that has an undefined meaning or function, but which
is unique for that keyboard (KEY_PROG/KEY_HOSTSPECIFIC)
How do you guarantee that KEY_PROG* is unique for the keyboard? What
do you do if you have 2 devices generating KEY_PROG1?
2. Generate SOMETHING that has a non-specific function, but a well defined
meaning (KEY_FN_F1)
And we have plenty of those.
3. Do nothing.
Well, probably not nothing. Map it to KEY_UNKNOWN and have userspace
listen to such events and inform user when it presses such a key that
such and such happened and tell him how to map it to something useful.
I *REALLY* do not like (3), and so far I have not seen a single good
technical reason to go with it.
Reasons: do not require expaning current keymap preserving space for
more useful keycodes.
From the technically sound ones, you need
to either have the keycodes you need for (2) (i.e. KEY_FN_BACKSPACE), or a
big enough set of keycodes to use (1) (i.e. KEY_PROG5..KEY_PROGn, where n
should probably be at least 8).
Why 8? Why not 16? Or 32 just to make sure?
> I really don't like KEY_FN_F1..KEY_FN_BACKSPACE either. What are they
> supposed to do? Just being an unique value to be mapped onto something
> useful? But why not use that useful keycode to begin with?
Yes, just an unique value to be mapped onto something useful, by something
in userspace. Just like KEY_PROG, actually.
In _every_ program that gets events directly?
One can't use a "useful keycode" for two reasons:
1. Because the key has no set function (it is unmarked)
2. Because it has, or could have, a set function, but we have no clue
which is it.
KEY_UNKNOWN then.
> I'd rather leave the keys unmapped and rely on initsripts (possibly
> with help from distributions vendors) to load proper keymap then add
> something that must be retranslated over and over again.
I don't. I can live with it, of course, but if we are going to go that way,
what IS the excuse for a big lot of the keys already in input.h? We have
been adding the unique keycodes and functional keycodes because it is
*useful*.
Because they most of them describe an expected _action_ that would
happend after keypress.
[...skipped...]
> And what are their intended functions would be? How KEY_VENDORHOMEPAGE
> is different from KEY_HOMEPAGE?
KEY_VENDORHOMEPAGE is exactly that. It is marked with the vendor's name.
KEY_HOMEPAGE has a defined function inherited from that other O.S. which is
to open up the default browser on the default "homepage". I can easily see
both keys existing on a system.
OK, right now we have:
KEY_WWW
KEY_VENDOR
KEY_HOMEPAGE
defines in input.h. Are you sayign that none of these would suit?
As for stuff like KEY_FN_BACKSPACE, well, I don't really care, as long as I
have *something* unique and not incorrect to use. But if we are not going
to add extra KEY_FN_ keycodes, why don't we just convert them all to
KEY_PROG, so that they can be useful to all and not just to people who have
FN_<whatever> keys?
We could add aliases if you really want...
Can you tell me on _your_ thinkpad what markings you have? I mean
there should be a common pattern on thinkpads and the rest may be
guessed (you mentioned that FN-F5 is used to turn off radio quite
often so if thinkpad driver detects radio switch it makes sence to
just go ahead and mark FN-F5 as KEY_WLAN, doesn't it?)
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
