On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 03:40:04PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:42:05AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Switch the code to use new style of getkeycode and setkeycode
> > methods to allow retrieving and setting keycodes not only by
> > their scancodes but also by index.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/input/misc/ati_remote2.c | 93
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > 1 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/ati_remote2.c
> > b/drivers/input/misc/ati_remote2.c
> > index 2325765..b2e0d82 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/ati_remote2.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/ati_remote2.c
> > @@ -483,51 +483,88 @@ static void ati_remote2_complete_key(struct urb *urb)
> > }
> >
> > static int ati_remote2_getkeycode(struct input_dev *idev,
> > - unsigned int scancode, unsigned int *keycode)
> > + struct input_keymap_entry *ke)
> > {
> > struct ati_remote2 *ar2 = input_get_drvdata(idev);
> > unsigned int mode;
> > - int index;
> > + int offset;
> > + unsigned int index;
> > + unsigned int scancode;
> > +
> > + if (ke->flags & INPUT_KEYMAP_BY_INDEX) {
> > + index = ke->index;
> > + if (index >= (ATI_REMOTE2_MODES - 1) *
> ^^^^
> That -1 looks wrong. Same in setkeycode().
>
Yes, indeed. Thanks for noticing.
> > + ARRAY_SIZE(ati_remote2_key_table))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + mode = ke->index / ARRAY_SIZE(ati_remote2_key_table);
> > + offset = ke->index % ARRAY_SIZE(ati_remote2_key_table);
> > + scancode = (mode << 8) + ati_remote2_key_table[offset].hw_code;
> > + } else {
> > + if (input_scancode_to_scalar(ke, &scancode))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + mode = scancode >> 8;
> > + if (mode > ATI_REMOTE2_PC)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + offset = ati_remote2_lookup(scancode & 0xff);
> > + if (offset < 0)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + index = mode * ARRAY_SIZE(ati_remote2_key_table) + offset;
> > + }
> >
> > - mode = scancode >> 8;
> > - if (mode > ATI_REMOTE2_PC || !((1 << mode) & ar2->mode_mask))
> > - return -EINVAL;
>
> You're removing the mode_mask check here, but I think that's fine. I
> don't see why the keymap shouldn't be allowed to be queried/modified for
> the unused modes.
Rigth, that was my justification for removal of the check.
>
> > + ke->keycode = ar2->keycode[mode][offset];
> > + ke->len = sizeof(scancode);
> > + memcpy(&ke->scancode, &scancode, sizeof(scancode));
>
> The scancodes fit into two bytes each. Does it matter that you're
> using 4 bytes here?
The old interface used 4 bytes and I think it just easier this way. I
think userspace will default to 4-byte scancodes unless they know they
need to handle bigger ones.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
