lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 4/5] dell-wmi: properly process Dell Instant Launch hotkey
    On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 07:46:32PM +0100, Michał Kępień wrote:
    > > Your description below helped explain why the KE_KEY change was necessary, the
    > > commit message didn't do that for me. Just explicitly stating "when there is no
    > > i8042 interrupt, the WMI even must generate a valid KE_KEY" or something along
    > > those lines would help.
    >
    > I will do that in v5, then.
    >
    > > > > > > > > > > { KE_IGNORE, 0xe026, { KEY_RESERVED } },
    > > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > > { KE_IGNORE, 0xe02e, { KEY_VOLUMEDOWN } },
    > > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > > @@ -235,6 +235,9 @@ static void dell_wmi_process_key(int
    > > > > > > > > > > reported_key)
    > > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > > acpi_video_handles_brightness_key_presses())
    > > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > > return;
    > > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > > + if (key->keycode == KEY_PROG4 &&
    > > > > > > > > > > !wmi_requires_smbios_request) + return;
    > > > > > > > > > > +
    > > > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > > > Here I would rather test against reported_key, not keycode. If
    > > > > > > > > > somebody in future adds KEY_PROG4 for something else we will
    > > > > > > > > > have problem...
    > >
    > > And ultimately, that is under our control. So let's just not do that :-)
    > >
    > > A comment by the definition of KEY_PROG4 that notes it's meaning in this driver
    > > should prevent any future attempts at overloading it and breaking this.
    >
    > As I'll be sending a v5 anyway, do you think Pali's idea is bad?
    > Personally, I'm leaning towards it. IMHO comparing against reported_key
    > would emphasize the fact that only event 0xe025 is "special" and chances
    > are that there are no other WMI event codes which need to be handled
    > this way.

    I took another look at the discussion on 5/5 regarding event 0xe029, and after
    that, no, no objection from me. Go ahead with Pali's recommendation to test
    against reported_key.

    --
    Darren Hart
    Intel Open Source Technology Center

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-03-03 22:21    [W:4.793 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site