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. > > > But this information can be derived from the length of > > > `google,custom-keyb-top-row`. > > > So we don't need a separate DT property for it. > > > > I am sorry, but I must insist. We need to have: > > > > - accurate keymap in linux,keymap property > > - a separate property describing location of top row keys in terms of > > rows and columns (whether we reuse MATRIX_KEY or define another macro > > I do not really care). > > > > Thanks. > > > > -- > > Dmitry
