Hi Philip, On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 10:11:21PM -0800, Philip Chen wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I have one more question below. > Could you take a look? > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 8:53 PM Philip Chen <philipchen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > I see. > > I'll update these patch sets shortly based on your suggestion. > > Thanks. > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2021 at 1:04 PM Dmitry Torokhov > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 02, 2021 at 11:39:34AM -0800, Philip Chen wrote: > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > > > Thanks for reviewing my patch over the holiday season. > > > > Please check my CIL. > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:18 PM Dmitry Torokhov > > > > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Philip, > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 05:47:57PM -0800, Philip Chen wrote: > > > > > > This patch adds a new property `google,custom-keyb-top-row` to the > > > > > > device tree for the custom keyboard top row design. > > > > > > > > > > Why don't we use the property we have for the same purpose in atkbd.c? > > > > > I.e. function-row-physmap? > > > > > > > > > Because this property serves a different purpose than function-row-physmap. > > > > `function-row-physmap` basically links the scancode to the physical > > > > position in the top row. > > > > `google,custom-keyb-top-row` aims at specifying the board-specific > > > > keyboard top row design associated with the action codes. > > > > > > > > In x86 path, the board-specific keyboard top row design associated > > > > with the action codes is exposed from coreboot to kernel through > > > > "linux,keymap" acpi table. > > > > When coreboot generates this acpi table, it asks EC to provide this > > > > information, since we add the board-specific top-row-design in EC > > > > codebase. > > > > (E.g. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec/+/refs/heads/main/board/jinlon/board.c#396) > > > > > > > > In ARM, we don't plan to involve EC in the vivaldi support stack. > > > > So `google,custom-keyb-top-row` DT property is our replacement for the > > > > board-specific top-row-design in x86 EC codebase. > > > > > > I disagree with this decision. We already have "linux,keymap" property > > > that is supposed to hold accurate keymap for the device in question, > > > there should be no need to introduce yet another property to adjust the > > > keymap to reflect the reality. If a device uses "non classic" ChromeOS > > > top row it should not be using the default keymap from > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/cros-ec-keyboard.dtsi but supply its own. You can > > > consider splitting the keymap into generic lower portion and the top row > > > and moving them into an .h file so they can be easily reused. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also, instead of specifying keycodes in this array we should use > > > > > combination of row and column identifying keys, like this: > > > > > > > > > > function-row-physmap = < > > > > > MATRIX_KEY(0x00, 0x02, KEY_F1), > > > > > MATRIX_KEY(0x03, 0x02, KEY_F2), > > > > > ... > > > > > >; > > > > > > > > This mapping between row/column to function keycode is fixed for all > > > > Chrome OS devices. > > > > > > *for now* The mapping for the rest of the keyboard has also stayed > > > static, but we still did not hardcode this information in the driver but > > > rather used DT property to pass it into the kernel. > > > > > > > So we don't really need to host this information in DT. > > > > Instead, I plan to hardcode this information in cros_ec_keyb.c. > > > > (Please see the array "top_row_key_pos[]" in my next patch: "[2/3] > > > > Input: cros_ec_keyb - Support custom top-row keys".) > > > > > > > > The only thing that could make the function-row-physmap file different > > > > among boards is the number of top row keys. > Given the reason above, can we just add `num-top-row-keys` property > instead of the whole `function-row-physmap`? > I think this is the only thing cros_ec_keyb needs to know to generate > the board-specific function-row-physmap file for the userspace. This would mean that we need to hard-code the knowledge of the scan matrix in the driver and will not allow us to "skip" any keys in the top row. Given that we did not hard-code the keymap I do not see why we would want to do it differently with the top row. function-row-physmap provides greatest flexibility and I do not see any downsides. Thanks. -- Dmitry
