> Your description below helped explain why the KE_KEY change was necessary, the
> commit message didn't do that for me. Just explicitly stating "when there is
> no
> i8042 interrupt, the WMI even must generate a valid KE_KEY" or something along
> those lines would help.
I will do that in v5, then.
> > > > > > > > > { KE_IGNORE, 0xe026, { KEY_RESERVED } },
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > { KE_IGNORE, 0xe02e, { KEY_VOLUMEDOWN } },
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,9 @@ static void dell_wmi_process_key(int
> > > > > > > > > reported_key)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > acpi_video_handles_brightness_key_presses())
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > return;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > + if (key->keycode == KEY_PROG4 &&
> > > > > > > > > !wmi_requires_smbios_request) + return;
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Here I would rather test against reported_key, not keycode. If
> > > > > > > > somebody in future adds KEY_PROG4 for something else we will
> > > > > > > > have problem...
>
> And ultimately, that is under our control. So let's just not do that :-)
>
> A comment by the definition of KEY_PROG4 that notes it's meaning in this
> driver
> should prevent any future attempts at overloading it and breaking this.
As I'll be sending a v5 anyway, do you think Pali's idea is bad?
Personally, I'm leaning towards it. IMHO comparing against reported_key
would emphasize the fact that only event 0xe025 is "special" and chances
are that there are no other WMI event codes which need to be handled
this way.
--
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
