On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:06 PM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > > On 05-06-18 12:46, Benjamin Berg wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 12:31 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> >>> On 05-06-18 12:14, Bastien Nocera wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 12:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 05-06-18 11:58, Bastien Nocera wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [SNIP] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok, so what are you suggestion, do you really want to hardcode >>>>> the cycle behavior in the kernel as these 2 patches are doing, >>>>> without any option to intervene from userspace? >>>>> >>>>> As mentioned before in the thread there are several example >>>>> of the kernel deciding to handle key-presses itself, putting >>>>> policy in the kernel and they have all ended poorly (think >>>>> e.g. rfkill, acpi-video dealing with LC brightnesskey presses >>>>> itself). >>>>> >>>>> I guess one thing we could do here is code out both solutions, >>>>> have a module option which controls if we: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Handle this in the kernel as these patches do >>>>> 2) Or send a new KEY_KBDILLUMCYCLE event >>>>> >>>>> Combined with a Kconfig option to select which is the default >>>>> behavior. Then Endless can select 1 for now and then in >>>>> Fedora (which defaults to Wayland now) we could default to >>>>> 2. once all the code for handling 2 is in place. >>>>> >>>>> This is ugly (on the kernel side) but it might be the best >>>>> compromise we can do. >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't really mind which option is used, I'm listing the problems with >>>> the different options. If you don't care about Xorg, then definitely go >>>> for adding a new key. Otherwise, processing it in the kernel is the >>>> least ugly, especially given that the key goes through the same driver >>>> that controls the brightness anyway. There's no crazy cross driver >>>> interaction as there was in the other cases you listed. >>> >>> >>> Unfortunately not caring about Xorg is not really an option. >>> >>> Ok, new idea, how about we make g-s-d behavior upon detecting a >>> KEY_KBDILLUMTOGGLE event configurable, if we're on a Mac do a >>> toggle, otherwise do a cycle. >>> >>> Or we could do this through hwdb, then we could add a hwdb entry >>> for this laptop setting the udev property to do a cycle instead of >>> a toggle on receiving the keypress. >> >> >> If we are adding hwdb entries anyway to control the userspace >> interpretation of the TOGGLE key, then we could also add the new CYCLE >> key and explicitly re-map it to TOGGLE. That requires slightly more >> logic in hwdb, but it does mean that we could theoretically just drop >> the workaround if we ever stop caring about Xorg. > > > Hmm, interesting proposal, I say go for it :) > > Regards, > > Hans > > > So maybe the next stop is that I can follow Darren's suggestion to eliminate the is_kbd_led_event() and send a v2 for review?
