On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 10:47:22AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 7/2/07, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 10:29:13AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> Hi Alfred, > >> > >> On 6/25/07, Alfred E. Heggestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >From: Alfred E. Heggestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > > >> >This driver adds support for USB VoIP phones using the CM109 chipset, > >> >such as the KIP-1000. Keypad is scanned and events are reported to > >> >the input subsystem. The buzzer can be activated by sending SND_TONE > >> >or SND_BELL to the input device. > >> >The driver has been tested with linux 2.6.21.3 on i386 and AMD64, > >> >and linux 2.6.21.1 on Broadcom BCM3302 (MIPS, OpenWRT Project) > >> >The current patch applies cleanly and is tested on linux 2.6.22-rc4 > >> >More testing and code review is welcome.. > >> > > >> > >> Thank you for your patch. I have couple of comments: > >> > >> - "input_dev->cdev.dev = &intf->dev;" should be "input_dev->dev.parent > >> = &intf->dev;" > >> - do not access input->private directly; use input_set_drvdata() and > >> input_get_drvdata() helpers. > >> - error handling for input_register_device(); > >> - I guess we need KEY_POUNDSIGN because I don't like that business > >> with key_shift + key_3 (I did not like it in yealink either...) > > > >Probably a KEY_KPPOUND. We should be sending the keypad keys on phones. > > > > Hmm, they use KEY_0 through KEY_9 now.
Which results in the phone sending 'é+ěščřžýáí' instead of '0123456789' on a Czech keyboard, which is definitely not what's intended. Similarly for many other European keyboards. > I wonder how userspace would do > if we changed these to KEY_KP0..KEY_KP9. I think the userspace is using X keysyms in this case anyway, so it should just work. > Do you think I could reuse 84 for KEY_KPPOUND? KEY_103RD wasn't that > popular I think... I'll have to figure out where does KEY_103RD come from. I believe it was defined as a key similar to KEY_102ND on specific national keyboards. Brazil springs to mind, but I might be completely wrong. If it's not in use today, we might as well kill it and reuse the code. > I also wonder if we should just expand KEY_MAX to 1023 and add all the > telephony codes (and pretty much the rest of HUT) so we have unique > events for different things... I don't think that it'd be a huge problem to expand KEY_MAX. I'm not entirely convinced we want to have a different event code for every different key numbered '5'. -- Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs
