On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 04:33:51PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Johannes Stezenbach [2009-11-26 18:39 +0100]:
>
> > Since many models share samsung-other, but only
> > three had the force_release handled in to the kernel
> > I'd also add a flag to keymap.c so that the
> > forced_release flag is only applied when the --force-release/-f
> > switch is present.
>
> I don't understand this. We need separate rules for the quirked vs.
> non-quirked models anyway, so why would we need this -f switch if we
> already specify it in the rules? I think I see what you try to do, but
> IMHO it would just make matters more confusing, and not really help to
> reduce rules either.
Well, 95-keymap.rules currently has:
ENV{DMI_VENDOR}=="[sS][aA][mM][sS][uU][nN][gG]*", ATTR{[dmi/id]product_name}=="*NC10*|*NC20*|*SP55S*|*SQ45S70S*|*SX60P*|*SX22S*|*SX30S*|*R59P/R60P/R61P*|*Q210*|*Q310*|*X05*|*P560*|*R560*", RUN+="keymap $name samsung-other"
But the kernel drivers/input/keyboard/atkbd.c only has the
force_release quirk for NC10, NC20 and SQ45S70S. I simply
don't know if at does harm to apply the force_release quirk
to the other models which share samsung-other.
Another solution than the proposed -f switch would be
to copy samsung-other to samsung-other-force-release and
add the force_release flag only to the latter.
> > Should I go forward and try to implement it?
>
> That would be great!
OK, I'll try to work something out over the weekend.
Thanks
Johannes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
