Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Eric Wong <e@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The above setting with this change and the following keymap
>> preserves my sanity on the atrocious adaptive keyboard on
>> the 2nd-gen X1 Carbon:
>
> Any comments on this patch? The Esc and F-keys on the keyboard
> are still numb and I'll be getting rid of the laptop in a few
> days; but maybe my patch can still be useful to others...
I've read through and I like it, FWIW. A brilliant idea. I don't have
the hardare to test the patch, though....
But I do wonder if you aren't missing an empty mask protection
somewhere? If I read this right, then there is nothing preventing you
from writing 0 here:
> +static ssize_t adaptive_kbd_modes_store(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + unsigned long t;
> +
> + if (parse_strtoul(buf, (1 << LAYFLAT_MODE) - 1, &t))
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + adaptive_kbd_modes = (unsigned int)t;
> + return count;
> +}
And then I believe you have a busy loop here:
> @@ -3815,20 +3838,20 @@ static int adaptive_keyboard_set_mode(int new_mode)
>
> static int adaptive_keyboard_get_next_mode(int mode)
> {
> - size_t i;
> - size_t max_mode = ARRAY_SIZE(adaptive_keyboard_modes) - 1;
> -
> - for (i = 0; i <= max_mode; i++) {
> - if (adaptive_keyboard_modes[i] == mode)
> - break;
> - }
> + int max_mode = fls(adaptive_kbd_modes);
> + int new_mode = mode >= max_mode ? HOME_MODE : mode + 1;
>
> - if (i >= max_mode)
> - i = 0;
> - else
> - i++;
> + /* make sure the new mode is allowed by the user */
> + while (!(adaptive_kbd_modes & (1 << new_mode))) {
> + new_mode++;
> + if (new_mode > max_mode)
> + new_mode = HOME_MODE;
>
> - return adaptive_keyboard_modes[i];
> + /* maybe the user disabled all other modes: */
> + if (new_mode == mode)
> + return mode;
> + }
> + return new_mode;
> }
Or am I reading this wrong?
Bjørn
