[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Patch in this message
    Subject[PATCH] Make SysRq work with odd keyboards

    My keyboard is quite old, but I'm very fond of it so I wouldn't like to
    replace it, even though it behaves quite odd when the SysRq key is
    pressed: It sends the make and break codes immediately after another,
    even when the key is beeing held down. After searching the list archives
    I found that Mike A. Harris used to have a keyboard that be behaved in
    the same way:

    He also wrote a patch for the 2.2.14 kernel with a work-around for the
    troublesome keyboard:

    Using the same work-around as in Mike's patch, I've now written a new
    patch (see attachment) for the 2.6.15 kernel.

    The idea is quite simple: Discard the SysRq break code if Alt is still
    being held down. This way the broken keyboard can send the break code
    (or the user with a normal keyboard can release the SysRq key) and the
    kernel waits until the next key is pressed or the Alt key is released.

    Would this work-around be acceptable for inclusion in the kernel?

    (I don't know how common these kinds of keyboards are, but we at least
    know that they are common enough to get two people to write patches to
    support them.)

    In the patch, I've used the constant sysrq_fix to show where the
    work-around is being invoked. If the code with the work-around is used
    with a normal keyboard, SysRq will work as expected with the addition
    that one can release SysRq after initially pressed. This behaviour might
    not be desireable, and in Mike's original patch /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq
    was used to control activation of the work-around.

    The method he used to get the value from /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq doesn't
    work with current kernels, so before I write a new way to configure it,
    I'd like to ask you kernel developers if you think that this should be
    configurable and if it should be, if it's best to use /proc or to make
    it a compile-time option?

    Cheers // Fredrik Roubert

    Sörbyplan 5 | +46 8 7609169 / +46 708 776974
    SE-163 71 Spånga |
    --- linux-2.6.15/drivers/char/keyboard.c 2006-01-03 04:21:10.000000000 +0100
    +++ linux-2.6.15-sysrq/drivers/char/keyboard.c 2006-03-14 00:05:48.000000000 +0100
    @@ -141,6 +141,7 @@
    /* Simple translation table for the SysRq keys */

    +static const int sysrq_fix = 1;
    unsigned char kbd_sysrq_xlate[KEY_MAX + 1] =
    "\000\0331234567890-=\177\t" /* 0x00 - 0x0f */
    "qwertyuiop[]\r\000as" /* 0x10 - 0x1f */
    @@ -150,6 +151,7 @@
    "230\177\000\000\213\214\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000" /* 0x50 - 0x5f */
    "\r\000/"; /* 0x60 - 0x6f */
    static int sysrq_down;
    +static int sysrq_alt_use;
    static int sysrq_alt;

    @@ -1044,7 +1046,7 @@
    kbd = kbd_table + fg_console;

    if (keycode == KEY_LEFTALT || keycode == KEY_RIGHTALT)
    - sysrq_alt = down;
    + sysrq_alt = down ? keycode : 0;
    #ifdef CONFIG_SPARC
    if (keycode == KEY_STOP)
    sparc_l1_a_state = down;
    @@ -1064,9 +1066,14 @@

    #ifdef CONFIG_MAGIC_SYSRQ /* Handle the SysRq Hack */
    if (keycode == KEY_SYSRQ && (sysrq_down || (down == 1 && sysrq_alt))) {
    - sysrq_down = down;
    + if (!sysrq_fix || !sysrq_down) {
    + sysrq_down = down;
    + sysrq_alt_use = sysrq_alt;
    + }
    + if (sysrq_fix && sysrq_down && !down && keycode == sysrq_alt_use)
    + sysrq_down = 0;
    if (sysrq_down && down && !rep) {
    handle_sysrq(kbd_sysrq_xlate[keycode], regs, tty);
    return;[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-10 12:21    [W:0.024 / U:10.816 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site