From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58580) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKZLb-0001ml-F1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:34:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKZLY-0002V4-BA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:33:59 -0500 Received: from mail.parknet.co.jp ([210.171.160.6]:39043) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cKZLY-0002Uu-28 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2016 18:33:56 -0500 From: OGAWA Hirofumi References: <87inqavlzj.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp> <8eb87c0e-ba00-e748-8cec-fa089403e13c@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 08:33:51 +0900 In-Reply-To: <8eb87c0e-ba00-e748-8cec-fa089403e13c@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Fri, 23 Dec 2016 15:58:07 -0600") Message-ID: <8737heb4ps.fsf@mail.parknet.co.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ps2: Fix lost scancodes by recent changes List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Herv=E9?= Poussineau , Gerd Hoffmann Eric Blake writes: > On 12/23/2016 07:00 AM, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: >> >> With "ps2: use QEMU qcodes instead of scancodes", key handling was >> changed to qcode base. But all scancodes are not converted to new one. >> >> This adds some missing qcodes what I found in using. >> >> Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi >> --- >> > >> +++ qemu-hirofumi/qapi-schema.json 2016-12-23 21:14:59.840729469 +0900 >> @@ -3642,7 +3642,8 @@ >> 'kp_9', 'less', 'f11', 'f12', 'print', 'home', 'pgup', 'pgdn', 'end', >> 'left', 'up', 'down', 'right', 'insert', 'delete', 'stop', 'again', >> 'props', 'undo', 'front', 'copy', 'open', 'paste', 'find', 'cut', >> - 'lf', 'help', 'meta_l', 'meta_r', 'compose', 'pause', 'ro', >> + 'lf', 'help', 'meta_l', 'meta_r', 'compose', 'pause', >> + 'ro', 'hiragana', 'henkan', 'yen', >> 'kp_comma', 'kp_equals', 'power' ] } > > Missing documentation (including a 'since 2.9' designation) for the new > enum members. Thanks for pointing out. -- OGAWA Hirofumi