Re: Remote "Mouse mode" buttons, Keycode choices, etc.

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1786 bytes --]

On Fri 2019-06-21 13:39:39, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 18:58 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > 
> > > I dug out a fair bunch of remote controls I got around 10 years
> > > ago[1],
> > > and started trying them all out.
> > > 
> > > I bumped into a couple of problems:
> > > 
> > > - the Snapstream Firefly remote ([2] using the rc-snapstream-
> > > firefly
> > > keymap and the ati_remote protocol) creates 2 input device nodes,
> > > one
> > > for the remote keys, one for the mouse mode. The mouse button on
> > > the
> > > remote just sends KEY_MODE, and doesn't change the mode, nothing is
> > > ever sent on the mouse device node
> > > 
> > > - the Streamzap remote ([3]) uses KEY_NUMERIC_[0-9] keycodes, just
> > > like
> > > a small minority of other devices. Is there any reason for them not
> > > to
> > > use KEY_[0-9] instead? Or for all of them to use KEY_NUMERIC_*, for
> > > consistencies' sake. I can send patches for those.
> > 
> > This may be a bit of fun; consistency is good but this will change
> > behaviour for people,
> > right?
> > 
> > So.. be careful :-).
> 
> I'm not really sure how one can be "careful" doing that.

You could do an config option and then pretend breakage is user
decision, for example.

Or better just change it and see what happens.

> You can check this patch to lirc from 2008 to see what it might end up
> looking like ;)
> https://people.redhat.com/bnocera/lirc-fix-remote-keycodes.patch
> 
> It doesn't really answer my question about whether this discrepancy was
> intended though.

Probably not intended.
									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]