Hi Dmitry, On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 6:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:28:19PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 3:58 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:50:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On 4/15/24 9:40 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:48:10PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I have a stronger preference to keep the KEY_DOUBLECLICK - that one seems less controversial as a genuine new input event. >> >> > >> >> > Please see my response to Peter's letter. I think it very much depends >> >> > on how it will be used (associated with the pointer or standalone as it >> >> > is now). >> >> > >> >> > For standalone application, recalling your statement that on Win you >> >> > have this gesture invoke configuration utility I would argue for >> >> > KEY_CONFIG for it. >> >> >> >> KEY_CONFIG is already generated by Fn + F# on some ThinkPads to launch >> >> the GNOME/KDE control center/panel and I believe that at least GNOME >> >> comes with a default binding to map KEY_CONFIG to the control-center. >> > >> > Not KEY_CONTROLPANEL? >> > >> > Are there devices that use both Fn+# and the doubleclick? Would it be an >> > acceptable behavior for the users to have them behave the same? >> > >> Catching up with the thread, thanks for all the comments. >> >> For FN+N (originally KEY_DEBUG_SYS_INFO) the proposal was to now use >> KEY_VENDOR there. My conclusion was that this is targeting vendor >> specific functionality, and that was the closest fit, if a new keycode >> was not preferred. > > Fn+N -> KEY_VENDOR mapping sounds good to me. > >> >> For the doubletap (which is a unique input event - not related to the >> pointer) I would like to keep it as a new unique event. >> >> I think it's most likely use would be for control panel, but I don't >> think it should be limited to that. I can see it being useful if users >> are able to reconfigure it to launch something different (browser or >> music player maybe?), hence it would be best if it did not conflict >> with an existing keycode function. I also can't confirm it doesn't >> clash on existing or future systems - it's possible. > > So here is the problem. Keycodes in linux input are not mere > placeholders for something that will be decided later how it is to be > used, they are supposed to communicate intent and userspace ideally does > not need to have any additional knowledge about where the event is > coming from. A keyboard either internal or external sends KEY_SCREENLOCK > and the system should lock the screen. It should not be aware that one > device was a generic USB external keyboard while another had an internal > sensor that recognized hovering palm making swiping motion to the right > because a vendor decided to make it. Otherwise you have millions of > input devices all generating unique codes and you need userspace to > decide how to interpret data coming from each device individually. > > If you truly do not have a defined use case for it you have a couple > options: > > - assign it KEY_RESERVED, ensure your driver allows remapping to an > arbitrary keycode, let user or distro assign desired keycode to it > > - assign KEY_PROG1 .. KEY_PROG4 - pretty much the same - leave it in the > hand of the user to define a shortcut in their DE to make it useful > >> >> FWIW - I wouldn't be surprised with some of the new gaming systems >> we're seeing (Steamdeck, Legion-Go, etc), that a doubletap event on a >> joystick might be useful to have, if the HW supports it? > > What would it do exactly? Once we have this answer we can define key or > button code (although I do agree that game controller buttons are > different from "normal" keys because they map to the geometry of the > controller which in turn defines their commonly understood function). > > But in any case you would not reuse the same keycode for something that > is supposed to invoke a configuration utility and also to let's say > drop a flash grenade in a game. > Understood. I don't see a path forward within your stated parameters. I did not realise that there were such limitations, so my apologies for wasting everybody's time, and thank you for your patience and guidance. I will drop this patch from the series and proceed using existing defined codes only. Hans, I'll need to rejig things a bits but I have some ideas and I think I can make it work and stay within the pdx86 tree, which will make it simpler. Mark
