On Thu, Dec 19, 2024, at 1:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 07:26:19PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 19-Dec-24 7:15 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > 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. I can look into this, but gut feeling is it's a bad solution for the Linux ecosystem as it will limit it to only platforms in the Lenovo Linux program. Be nicer to have a more widespread solution. >> > >> >>> >> >>> 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). >> >> If we want to filter out these in essence fake modifier >> events then this needs to be done at some core level, >> because AFAIK the shift + meta + F23 key-combo is what >> microsoft is telling OEMs to use, so we are going to see this on >> laptops from all vendors including whitelabel laptops. > > Hm, then I'd rather leave it to the userspace shortcut handling to deal > with. It's probably gonna disappear the same way as others in a couple > of years ;) and be replaced with some thing else. > > And mapping to F23 as I said should be done through udev. I doubt they > will get all OEMs settle on the same scancode. > I'll see if we can find a way to check on other vendor platforms what scancode is used. If it is a common scancode, across multiple vendors, would the patch be acceptable? If it isn't then I agree it's not suitable. I assumed it would be common and hadn't really considered that it wouldn't be - my bad. Mark
