Hi, On 4/16/24 2:48 PM, Mark Pearson wrote: > Hi Hans > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, at 4:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> >> On 4/16/24 1:57 AM, Mark Pearson wrote: >>> Hi Dmitry, >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 6:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:28:19PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 3:58 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:50:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/15/24 9:40 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:48:10PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a stronger preference to keep the KEY_DOUBLECLICK - that one seems less controversial as a genuine new input event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please see my response to Peter's letter. I think it very much depends >>>>>>>> on how it will be used (associated with the pointer or standalone as it >>>>>>>> is now). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For standalone application, recalling your statement that on Win you >>>>>>>> have this gesture invoke configuration utility I would argue for >>>>>>>> KEY_CONFIG for it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> KEY_CONFIG is already generated by Fn + F# on some ThinkPads to launch >>>>>>> the GNOME/KDE control center/panel and I believe that at least GNOME >>>>>>> comes with a default binding to map KEY_CONFIG to the control-center. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not KEY_CONTROLPANEL? >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there devices that use both Fn+# and the doubleclick? Would it be an >>>>>> acceptable behavior for the users to have them behave the same? >>>>>> >>>>> Catching up with the thread, thanks for all the comments. >>>>> >>>>> For FN+N (originally KEY_DEBUG_SYS_INFO) the proposal was to now use >>>>> KEY_VENDOR there. My conclusion was that this is targeting vendor >>>>> specific functionality, and that was the closest fit, if a new keycode >>>>> was not preferred. >>>> >>>> Fn+N -> KEY_VENDOR mapping sounds good to me. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> For the doubletap (which is a unique input event - not related to the >>>>> pointer) I would like to keep it as a new unique event. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's most likely use would be for control panel, but I don't >>>>> think it should be limited to that. I can see it being useful if users >>>>> are able to reconfigure it to launch something different (browser or >>>>> music player maybe?), hence it would be best if it did not conflict >>>>> with an existing keycode function. I also can't confirm it doesn't >>>>> clash on existing or future systems - it's possible. >>>> >>>> So here is the problem. Keycodes in linux input are not mere >>>> placeholders for something that will be decided later how it is to be >>>> used, they are supposed to communicate intent and userspace ideally does >>>> not need to have any additional knowledge about where the event is >>>> coming from. A keyboard either internal or external sends KEY_SCREENLOCK >>>> and the system should lock the screen. It should not be aware that one >>>> device was a generic USB external keyboard while another had an internal >>>> sensor that recognized hovering palm making swiping motion to the right >>>> because a vendor decided to make it. Otherwise you have millions of >>>> input devices all generating unique codes and you need userspace to >>>> decide how to interpret data coming from each device individually. >>>> >>>> If you truly do not have a defined use case for it you have a couple >>>> options: >>>> >>>> - assign it KEY_RESERVED, ensure your driver allows remapping to an >>>> arbitrary keycode, let user or distro assign desired keycode to it >>>> >>>> - assign KEY_PROG1 .. KEY_PROG4 - pretty much the same - leave it in the >>>> hand of the user to define a shortcut in their DE to make it useful >>>> >>>>> >>>>> FWIW - I wouldn't be surprised with some of the new gaming systems >>>>> we're seeing (Steamdeck, Legion-Go, etc), that a doubletap event on a >>>>> joystick might be useful to have, if the HW supports it? >>>> >>>> What would it do exactly? Once we have this answer we can define key or >>>> button code (although I do agree that game controller buttons are >>>> different from "normal" keys because they map to the geometry of the >>>> controller which in turn defines their commonly understood function). >>>> >>>> But in any case you would not reuse the same keycode for something that >>>> is supposed to invoke a configuration utility and also to let's say >>>> drop a flash grenade in a game. >>>> >>> >>> Understood. >>> >>> I don't see a path forward within your stated parameters. I did not realise that there were such limitations, so my apologies for wasting everybody's time, and thank you for your patience and guidance. >>> >>> I will drop this patch from the series and proceed using existing defined codes only. >>> >>> Hans, I'll need to rejig things a bits but I have some ideas and I think I can make it work and stay within the pdx86 tree, which will make it simpler. >> >> Ok this sounds good to me. For Fn + N using KEY_VENDOR sounds good for >> me and for the doubletap any one of >> KEY_CONFIG/KEY_CONTROLPANEL/KEY_INFO/KEY_PROG1 >> or some other suitable KEY_foo define works for me. >> > I think this should be a configurable input, by design. So my preference (if not allowed a new keycode, which I personally think is the better option) is for PROG1. > > I discussed with Peter last night and it looks likely OK on their side. I do plan on doing some testing first, so it might take a few days to get the next set of patches out. Ok, PROG1 works for me. Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ ibm-acpi-devel mailing list ibm-acpi-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ibm-acpi-devel
