Re: [PATCH] Input: document the proper usage of EV_KEY and KEY_UNKNOWN

[Matthew Garrett <mjg59@srcf.ucam.org>]

On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 09:13:04PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:

> Well, we already produce KEY_UNKNOWN anyway, and the stuff you quoted above
> just makes KEY_UNKNOWN useful for something instead of keeping it as an
> useless notice to the user that some key (which one? who knows!) was
> pressed.

Given existing userspace, it's never useful to generate KEY_UNKNOWN. 
Adding extra information to the event doesn't alter that.

> Perhaps what you dislike re. KEY_UNKNOWN is the part where KEY_UNKNOWN+scan
> code is declared to be the prefered way to report keys that do not have a
> specific function?  Your reply seems to indicate this, but I am not sure I
> really understood what you meant.

Yes.

> I am not exactly in love with the idea of using KEY_UNKNOWN in place of
> stuff like KEY_FN_F1 either (I'd prefer to just bump up KEY_MAX and have
> more posicional keycodes), but Dmitry is being quite clear that he does not
> want to increase KEY_MAX to add more positional keycodes.

I think using positional keycodes would also be a mistake. We just need 
a slightly larger set of keycodes representing user-definable keys. 
There's 4 of them already - I really can't imagine there being many 
keyboards with a significantly larger set of unlabelled keys.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org