On 10.05.2011 07:11, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2011 at 07:38:00AM +0300, Anssi Hannula wrote: >> Hi all! >> >> Most IR/RF remotes differ from normal keyboards in that they don't >> provide release events. They do provide native repeat events, though. >> >> Currently the Linux kernel RC/input subsystems provide a simulated >> autorepeat for remote controls (default delay 500ms, period 33ms), and >> X.org server ignores these events and generates its own autorepeat for them. >> >> The kernel RC subsystem provides a simulated release event when 250ms >> has passed since the last native event (repeat or non-repeat) was >> received from the device. >> >> This is problematic, since it causes lots of extra repeat events to be >> always sent (for up to 250ms) after the user has released the remote >> control button, which makes the remote quite uncomfortable to use. > > I got a bit confused reading this description. Does this mean that remotes > usually send: > key press - repeat - repeat - ... - repeat - <silence> > where the silence indicates that the key has been released? Which the kernel > after 250ms translates into a release event. > And the kernel discards the repeats and generates it's own on 500/33? > Do I get this right so far? Yes. > If so, I'm not sure how to avoid the 250ms delay since we have no indication > from the hardware when the silence will stop, right? Yes. AFAICS what we need is to not use softrepeat for these devices and instead use the native repeats. The 250ms release delay could then be kept (as it wouldn't cause unwanted repeats anymore) or it could be made 0ms if that is deemed better. I listed some ways to do that below in my original post. > Note that the repeat delay and ratio are configurable per-device using XKB, > so you could set up the 500/33 in X too. It wouldn't make any difference with the actual issue which is "autorepeat happening after physical key released". I guess the reason this hasn't come up earlier is that the unified IR/RC subsystem in the linux kernel is still quite new. It definitely needs to be improved regarding this issue - just trying to figure out the best way to do it. > Cheers, > Peter > >> Now, IMO something should be done to fix this. But what exactly? >> >> Here are two ideas that would remove these ghost repeats: >> >> 1. Do not provide any repeat/release simulation in the kernel for RC >> devices (by default?), just provide both keydown and immediate release >> events for every native keypress or repeat received from the device. >> + Very simple to implement >> - We lose the ability to track repeats, i.e. if a new event was a repeat >> or a new keypress; "holding down" a key becomes impossible >> >> or >> 2. Replace kernel autorepeat simulation by passing through the native >> repeat events (probably filtering them according to REP_DELAY and >> REP_PERIOD), and have a device property bit (fetchable via EVIOCGPROP) >> indicating that the keyrelease is simulated, and have the X server use >> the native repeats instead of softrepeats for such a device. >> + The userspace correctly gets repeat events tagged as repeats and >> release events when appropriate (albeit a little late) >> - Adds complexity. Also, while the kernel part is quite easy to >> implement, I'm not sure if the X server part is. >> >> or >> 3. Same as 1., but indicate the repeatness of an event with a new >> additional special event before EV_SYN (sync event). >> + Simple to implement >> - Quite hacky, and userspace still can't guess from initial >> keypress/release if the key is still pressed down or not. >> >> 4. Same as 1., but have a new EV_RC with RC_KEYDOWN and RC_KEYUP events, >> with RC_KEYDOWN sent when a key is pressed down a first time along >> with the normal EV_KEY event, and RC_KEYUP sent when the key is >> surely released (e.g. 250ms without native repeat events or another >> key got pressed, i.e. like the simulated keyup now). >> + Simple to implement, works as expected with most userspace apps with >> no changes to them; and if an app wants to know the repeatness of an >> event or held-down-ness of a key, it can do that. >> - Repeatness of the event is hidden behind a new API. >> >> What do you think? Or any other ideas? >> >> 2 and 4 seem nicest to me. >> (I don't know how feasible 2 would be on X server side, though) >> >> -- >> Anssi Hannula >> _______________________________________________ >> xorg-devel@xxxxxxxxxxx: X.Org development >> Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel >> Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel >> > -- Anssi Hannula -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
