Hi, On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 05:01:09PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > Really +Cc Peter Hutterer this time. > > On 19-Dec-24 4:48 PM, Mark Pearson wrote: > > Hi Hans > > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, at 10:28 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> +Cc Peter Hutterer > > > > My bad - I've been discussing this with Peter and should have added him. Thanks for including (sorry Peter!) > > Except I forgot to actually add Peter... > > >> Hi Mark, > >> > >> Thank you for your patch. > >> > >> On 19-Dec-24 4:18 PM, Mark Pearson wrote: > >>> The copilot key on Lenovo laptops doesn't work as scancode 0x6e, which it > >>> generates is not mapped. > >>> This change lets scancode 0x6e generate keycode 193 (F23 key) which is > >>> the expected value for copilot. > >>> > >>> Tested on T14s G6 AMD. > >>> I've had reports from other users that their ThinkBooks are using the same > >>> scancode. > >> > >> Hmm, I'm not sure mapping this to KEY_F23 is the right thing to do, > >> there are 2 issues with this approach: > >> > >> 1. /usr/share/X11/xkb/symbols/inet currently maps this to > >> XF86TouchpadOff as F20 - F23 where repurposed to > >> TouchPad on/off/toggle / micmute to work around X11 > >> not allowing key-codes > 247. > >> > >> We are actually working on removing this X11 workaround > >> to make F20-F23 available as normal key-codes again > >> for keyboards which actually have such keys. > >> > >> 2. There are some keyboards which have an actual F23 key > >> and mapping the co-pilot key to that and then having > >> desktop environments grow default keybindings on top > >> of that will basically mean clobbering the F23 key or > >> at least making it harder to use. > >> > >> I think was is necessary instead is to add a new > >> KEY_COPILOT to include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h > >> and use that instead. We have discussed this with Peter and came to the conclusion that KEY_ASSISTANT should cover this use case. Also, this tweak should go into udev rules (/lib/udev/hwdb.d/60-keyboard.hwdb) instead of adding a vendor-specific tweak to the main atkbd table. For the future releases you may want to add "linux,keymap" device property to your ACPI/DSDT to control the scancode->keycode mapping when Linux is running. > > > > Sorry, should have been clearer in the commit message. > > I'm doing this just on the Microsoft spec. The co-pilot key is left-shift, Windows/Meta key, F23. Weird combo I know.... > > > > Somewhere I had a MS page...but this Tom's HW page mentions it: > > https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/windows-copilot-key-is-secretly-from-the-ibm-era-but-you-can-remap-it-with-the-right-tools > > > > I'll see if I can find something more formal. > > > >> > >> Peter, I thought I read somewhere that you were looking > >> into mapping the copilot key to a new KEY_COPILOT evdev > >> key for some other keyboards? > >> > > > > Wouldn't this require the kernel catching all three key events and doing the interpretation? I have no idea how this would be done or if it makes sense. > > So I guess I got caught off guard by your commit message > which suggests that only scancode 0x6e is generated. > > If indeed a left-shift + Windows/Meta key + 0x6e combination > is send them this is a different story, since indeed we > cannot filter on that in the kernel. Although sometimes > I wonder if we should because we are seeing similar things > where left-shift + Windows/Meta key + xxxx is send for > e.g. touchpad on/off toggle. > > To workaround this atm GNOME listens for XF86TouchpadToggle > as well as shift + meta + XF86TouchpadToggle, theoretically it > would be nice if we can recognize these special key-combos at > a lower level. But thinking about this that is nasty, because > then we would get an event sequence like this: > > Report shift pressed > Report meta pressed No, you have to delay to see if it is real press or part of sequence. > <oops special key, release them> > Report meta released > Report shift released > Report KEY_TOUCHPAD_TOGGLE > <and what do we do with the modifiers now? > for correctness I guess we report them > as pressed again until the hw reports them released> > Report shift pressed > Report meta pressed > <hw releases the fake modifiers> > Report meta released > Report shift released > > So yeah handling this in the kernel is not going to be pretty. Yes, we have a form of this in drivers/tty/sysrq.c and it indeed is not pretty. > > So I think your right and just mapping this to F23 is probably > best, but I would like to hear what Peter thinks first. So vendor yet again encoded a shortcut sequence into firmware, beautiful. I guess you can try to install a 8042 filter (via i8042_add_filter()) in drivers/platform/x86/lenovo-<something>.c to monitor for this specific scancode sequence and replace it with something else (through an auxiliary input device). Thanks. -- Dmitry
