From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M8iMK-0004hG-92
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:09:28 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1M8iME-0004fK-Iw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:09:26 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=47238 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M8iME-0004fG-EW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:09:22 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47882)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1M8iMD-0003bd-Up
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 25 May 2009 18:09:22 -0400
Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 19:09:05 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Fwd: Re: i8042 buffer size?]
Message-ID: <20090525220905.GA8583@amt.cnet>
References: <4A14300B.4000204@wpkg.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A14300B.4000204@wpkg.org>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 06:30:03PM +0200, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote:
> As a follow up to "i8042.c: No controller found..." thread - below are  
> the scancodes which Linux receives, and a comment from a former i8042  
> Linux maintainer (Vojtech Pavlik fro SuSE Labs):
>
>
>> May 20 12:25:09: 18 81 7f 18 81 7f 18 8e 53 28 00 ff 28 00
>
>> May 20 13:45:43: 09 00 00 08 00 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 fe 01 08
>
>> May 20 13:57:06: 08 7f 7b 08 7f 00 08 26 00 28 00 fc 38 fe fa 38
>
>> May 20 14:01:55: 38 ea 97 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 38 ff ff 28 00 ff 28 00 ff 28 00
>
>> May 20 14:14:35: 28 00 ff 28 00 fe 28 00 f9 38 ff f7 28 00 f8 38 fd f2 38 f7 cb 38 fe f5 38 fc e3 38 fe f2 38 fe f2 38 fe f1 38 fe f0 38 fe f1 38 fe f2 38 fe f5 38 fe f5
>
>> May 20 14:15:01: 18 f9 01 18 ff 02 08 00 02 08 00 03 18 fe 06 18 fe 07 18 fc 09 18 fd 09 18 fb 09 18 fa 0a 18 fe 0b 18 fb 08 18 fe 07 18 ff 03 08 00 01 08 00 01 08 00 01 09 00 00 08 00 00 08 00 01 28 00 fe 38 ff ff 28 00 fe 18 ff 00 28 00 ff 18 ff 00 28 00 ff 18 ff 00 09 00 00 08 00 00 18 fb 00 18 f8 00 18 f9 00 18 fe 00 18 ff 01 18 fe 01 18 f9 02 18 fe 00 09 00 00
>
>> May 20 14:20:54: 09 00 00 08 00 00 18 ff 00 18 fc 00 18 fa 00 18 f9 00 
>> 18 f9 00 18 fa 00 18 f8 00 18 f7 00 18 f8 00 18 fa 00 18 fa 00 18 fa 00 
>> 18 fa 00 18 fc 00 18 fc 00 18 fd 00 38 ff ff 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 
>> 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 fe 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 fe 00 18 ff 00 
>> 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 08 00 01 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 
>> 18 ff 01 18 ff 00 08 00 01 18 ff 00 18 fe 02 18 ff 00 18 ff 00 18 ff 01 
>> 18 fd 00 18 fd 00 18 fa 00 18 f7 00 18 f7 00 18 f4 00 18 f3 00 18 ef 00 
>> 18 ee 01 18 ed 03 18 ec 04 18 e9 02 08 7f 08 08 7f 00 08 44 00 09 00 00 
>> 19 fc 01 08 00 00 38 81 ff 18 92 00 
>
> This looks seriously like uninitialized memory (12-bit FAT perhaps?) -
> and very much like a Qemu bug. It doesn't even make sense if interpreted
> as keyboard scancodes - 00 is reserved and ff is an error condition.

Tomasz, 

Can you provide a recipe on how to reproduce this?