From: Fabio Baltieri <fabiobaltieri@chromium.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@chromium.org>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@chromium.org>,
Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@kernel.org>,
Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>,
linux-input@vger.kernel.org, chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Input: cros_ec_keyb - add function key support
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 19:33:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aYo2cYhd-XCcLa43@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aYoZEztHrIx5CzwQ@google.com>
On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 10:20:52AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 03:46:20PM +0000, Fabio Baltieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 06, 2026 at 08:25:14AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not believe this flag is needed. Always do FN processing. If there
> > > is no FN in the keymap it should work just fine.
> >
> > The problem is that if there is an Fn key and a keymap, hence we process
> > the Fn keys in the kernel, then we don't send the Fn events, but we
> > currently have devices deployed with an Fn key where the key is handled
> > by the userspace and they expect KEY_FN events to be emitted, so if I
> > let the "fn keymap" logic kick in it unconditionally it would cause a
> > regression for existing devices.
>
> Hmm, I see. Then I think we really need to have it as a device property,
> because keymap can be manipulated at runtime, so depending on it to
> switch processing seems weird.
>
> It is like autorepeat, either device configuration asks for it, or it
> does not...
Ok, the DT folks were fairly explicit about not wanting anything that
even remotely looks like configuration into dt. Right now the behavior
changes based on what's in the keymap, which I think is fine.
I see the keymap can be manipulated in runtime but then I guess I could
just install a custom hook to idev->setkeycode, recompute
cros_ec_keyb_has_fn_map() and then call input_default_getkeycode()?
I'd have to make that function public but then it'd automatically change
the behavior in runtime as keycodes are defined/undefined.
Would that be acceptable?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-02-09 19:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-01-12 9:33 [PATCH v5 0/1] Input: cros_ec_keyb: add function key support Fabio Baltieri
2026-01-12 9:33 ` [PATCH v5 1/1] Input: cros_ec_keyb - " Fabio Baltieri
2026-02-06 16:25 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2026-02-09 15:46 ` Fabio Baltieri
2026-02-09 18:20 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2026-02-09 19:33 ` Fabio Baltieri [this message]
2026-02-09 19:53 ` Dmitry Torokhov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aYo2cYhd-XCcLa43@google.com \
--to=fabiobaltieri@chromium.org \
--cc=bleung@chromium.org \
--cc=chrome-platform@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=groeck@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sjg@chromium.org \
--cc=tzungbi@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox