From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vojtech Pavlik Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: driver for CM109 chipset Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 00:38:08 +0200 Message-ID: <20070712223808.GD8858@suse.cz> References: <467FC7E5.7050901@db.org> <20070702153707.GA27958@suse.cz> <20070712152532.GB9459@suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: "Alfred E. Heggestad" , linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:22:10PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > >> Hmm, they use KEY_0 through KEY_9 now. > > > >Which results in the phone sending '=E9+=EC=B9=E8=F8=BE=FD=E1=ED' inst= ead of=20 > >'0123456789' > >on a Czech keyboard, which is definitely not what's intended. Similarl= y > >for many other European keyboards. > > >=20 > Hmm, I uttely confused. Why when atkbd emits KEY_0 it you get 0 in the > shell (don't you?) but different result with phone keypad? No, on a Czech keyboard you don't. You press KEY_0, you get '=E9'. The French layout gives sililar results. (For '0' you need to press KEY_SHIFT KEY_0.) > >I'll have to figure out where does KEY_103RD come from. I believe it w= as > >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 i= n > >use today, we might as well kill it and reuse the code. >=20 > You had it in the beginning but it was removed around 2.6.2 so 84 is > free at the moment. OK then. > >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'. >=20 > But they are different as in people expect different actions when they > press 5 on the keyboard, keypad, remote control and phone, don't they? Maybe yes. If they had a input device from hell combining all this functionality into one, they'd likely still want to differentiate between the keys. > Well, maybe not... I can argue both ways I guess... It's more like > people may not want input from certain devices be used by certain > programs (like they don't like RC cause numbers to be printed in the > shell).=20 But people like the fact that the 'voip' phone devices type regular keys into the voip client programs, because that's what the programs expect, the keys typed on a regular keyboard ... You can't win in all cases. > So far they used grabbing on the devices but I don't think > this is sustainable in the long run. They likely want per-device keymaps. This would also allow to have two keyboards, with different language layouts, connected at the same time. I know a number of people asked how to do that in the past. --=20 Vojtech Pavlik Director SuSE Labs