[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110327171304.GD30244@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2011 10:13:05 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Corentin Chary <corentin.chary@...il.com>,
Chris Bagwell <chris@...bagwell.com>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg@...hat.com>,
acpi4asus-user@...ts.sourceforge.net,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
vojtech@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] eeepc-wmi: Add support for T101MT Home/Express Gate
key
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 01:58:24PM -0500, Seth Forshee wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:03:33AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > So, would the following make sense (KEY_TBD is may abbreviation for "key
> > > to be determinded"):
> > >
> > > - On press (0xe4), send KEY_TBD, value = 1
> > > - On hold (0xea), send KEY_TBD, value = 2
> > > - On release (0xe5), send KEY_TBD, value = 0
> >
> > Yes.
>
> There's a little problem with this. The driver uses sparse-keymap, which
> calls input_report_key(), which is doing this:
>
> input_event(dev, EV_KEY, code, !!value);
Ah, right, it really did not have in mind passing on auto-repeating keys
as is when it was written.
>
> I don't see the hold events in userspace, so they must be getting
> dropped as duplicates as you suggested.
>
> I'm not sure who is at fault here. Should input_report_key() not be
> forcing value to 0 or 1? Or should sparse-keymap be calling
> input_event() directly? Or is sparse-keymap the wrong tool for handling
> keys this way?
I do not thik we shoudl burden sparse-keymap with handling repeats. Just
mark the device as auto-repeating (by setting EV_REP bit) and let input
core autorepeat logic do it for you.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists