On 08/11/2024 14.24, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, BALATON Zoltan wrote:On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Thomas Huth wrote:On 06/11/2024 21.32, BALATON Zoltan wrote:On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:On 6/11/24 13:00, BALATON Zoltan wrote:On Wed, 6 Nov 2024, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:Convert the next-kbd device from the legacy UI qemu_add_kbd_event_handler()function to use qemu_input_handler_register().Signed-off-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <h...@tuxfamily.org> --- hw/m68k/next-kbd.c | 163 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 108 insertions(+), 55 deletions(-)-static const unsigned char next_keycodes[128] = { - 0x00, 0x49, 0x4A, 0x4B, 0x4C, 0x4D, 0x50, 0x4F, - 0x4E, 0x1E, 0x1F, 0x20, 0x1D, 0x1C, 0x1B, 0x00, - 0x42, 0x43, 0x44, 0x45, 0x48, 0x47, 0x46, 0x06, - 0x07, 0x08, 0x00, 0x00, 0x2A, 0x00, 0x39, 0x3A, - 0x3B, 0x3C, 0x3D, 0x40, 0x3F, 0x3E, 0x2D, 0x2C, - 0x2B, 0x26, 0x00, 0x00, 0x31, 0x32, 0x33, 0x34, - 0x35, 0x37, 0x36, 0x2e, 0x2f, 0x30, 0x00, 0x00, - 0x00, 0x38, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 +#define NEXTKBD_NO_KEY 0xffNow you don't need this 0xff define any more because you can use 0 as no key value then the [0 ... Q_KEY_CODE__MAX] init below can also be dropped because static variables are 0 init automatically.Whether 0 or 0xff is best for NO_KEY, I don't know. However, definitions are useful when reviewing ...Regards, BALATON Zoltan+static const int qcode_to_nextkbd_keycode[] = {+ /* Make sure future additions are automatically set to NEXTKBD_NO_KEY */+ [0 ... Q_KEY_CODE__MAX] = NEXTKBD_NO_KEY, + + [Q_KEY_CODE_ESC] = 0x49, + [Q_KEY_CODE_1] = 0x4a, + [Q_KEY_CODE_2] = 0x4b, + [Q_KEY_CODE_3] = 0x4c, + [Q_KEY_CODE_4] = 0x4d,[...]+static void nextkbd_event(DeviceState *dev, QemuConsole *src, InputEvent *evt)+{ + NextKBDState *s = NEXTKBD(dev); + int qcode, keycode; + bool key_down = evt->u.key.data->down; + + qcode = qemu_input_key_value_to_qcode(evt->u.key.data->key); + if (qcode >= ARRAY_SIZE(qcode_to_nextkbd_keycode)) { + return; + }Never mind, there's already a check for that here so it should be OK. (Does this still work with SHIFTs not having a value in the array? Maybe they happen to be lower than the array size but maybe it's better to move this check lower?)
Q_KEY_CODE_SHIFT is one of the first entries in the enumeration, so we should be fine for now. I also tested the patch and the shift keys are working as expected.
Thomas
