On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 04:25:03PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Consider ejecting a CD tray. You have a laptop with a key that maked
> eject CD. Because it is a new laptop there are no proper mapping yet
> so some adjustments are needed. With your scenario the kernel emits
> KEY_PROG26. User ha
On 5/30/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >1. Generate SOMETHING that has an undefined meaning or function, but which
> > >is unique for that keyboard (KEY_PROG/KEY_HOSTSPECIFIC)
> >
> > How do you guarantee that KEY_PROG* i
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >1. Generate SOMETHING that has an undefined meaning or function, but which
> >is unique for that keyboard (KEY_PROG/KEY_HOSTSPECIFIC)
>
> How do you guarantee that KEY_PROG* is unique for the keyboard? What
> do you do if you have 2 devices generating
On 5/30/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 5/29/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >But I will still need to add keys, and I still think that a bunch of 32 or
> > >so HOSTSPECIFIC keys is a very
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >But I will still need to add keys, and I still think that a bunch of 32 or
> >so HOSTSPECIFIC keys is a very very good idea to have, *even* if I add some
> >model specific knowledge a
On Wed, 30 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 5/30/07, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >We've already got KEY_PROG* - is this not the sort of situation they're
> >for? (ie, keys that aren't mapped to a specific purpose but would be
> >potentially useful to userspace at the per-user
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:31:35AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Not all world is X :) Actually few of "FN" keys, like KEY_WLAN,
> KEY_SLEEP, etc should be handled not [only] by X but by other layers.
I agree - the ones that have a defined function should certainly be set
to sensible defaults
On 5/30/07, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:18:17AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Matthew,
> > >We've already got KEY_PROG* - is this not the sort of situation they're
> > >for? (ie, keys that aren't mapped to a specific purpose but would be
> > >poten
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:18:17AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
> >We've already got KEY_PROG* - is this not the sort of situation they're
> >for? (ie, keys that aren't mapped to a specific purpose but would be
> >potentially useful to userspace at the per-user level)
> >
>
> Right.
Hi Matthew,
On 5/30/07, Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:57:11AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> > I really don't like KEY_FN_F1..KEY_FN_BACKSPACE either. What are they
> > supposed to do? Just being an unique value to be mapped onto something
> > useful? B
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:57:11AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> I really don't like KEY_FN_F1..KEY_FN_BACKSPACE either. What are they
> supposed to do? Just being an unique value to be mapped onto something
> useful? But why not use that useful keycode to begin with?
We've already got KEY_PROG
On 5/29/07, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sunday 27 May 2007 08:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > I am unconvinced that we need new keycodes. Isn't there a be
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sunday 27 May 2007 08:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > I am unconvinced that we need new keycodes. Isn't there a better default
> > > keycodes for these keys? You mentioned that fn+f5 contro
On Sunday 27 May 2007 08:15, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 May 2007 13:31, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Add hotkeys available in almost all ThinkPads manufactured in the last
> > > five
> > > years (more than one mil
On Sun, 27 May 2007, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Saturday 26 May 2007 13:31, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > Add hotkeys available in almost all ThinkPads manufactured in the last
> > > five
> > > years (more than one million mac
On Saturday 26 May 2007 13:31, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Add hotkeys available in almost all ThinkPads manufactured in the last five
> years (more than one million machines given the ammount of batteries
> recalled) to input.h, and make thinkpad-acpi use those instead of issuing
> KEY_UN
On Sat, 26 May 2007, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Saturday 26 May 2007 13:31, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Add hotkeys available in almost all ThinkPads manufactured in the last five
> > years (more than one million machines given the ammount of batteries
> > recalled) to input.h, and make
Add hotkeys available in almost all ThinkPads manufactured in the last five
years (more than one million machines given the ammount of batteries
recalled) to input.h, and make thinkpad-acpi use those instead of issuing
KEY_UNKNOWN.
KEY_FN_PAGEDOWN is not ever reported by the ThinkPad firmware due
18 matches
Mail list logo
