Re: [PATCH 1/4] Input: Add trackpoint doubletap and system debug info keycodes

["Mark Pearson" <mpearson-lenovo@squebb.ca>]

Hi Hans

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, at 4:33 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 4/16/24 1:57 AM, Mark Pearson wrote:
>> Hi Dmitry,
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 6:54 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 04:28:19PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 3:58 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 09:50:37PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/15/24 9:40 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 10:48:10PM -0400, Mark Pearson wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have a stronger preference to keep the KEY_DOUBLECLICK - that one seems less controversial as a genuine new input event.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see my response to Peter's letter. I think it very much depends
>>>>>>> on how it will be used (associated with the pointer or standalone as it
>>>>>>> is now).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For standalone application, recalling your statement that on Win you
>>>>>>> have this gesture invoke configuration utility I would argue for
>>>>>>> KEY_CONFIG for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> KEY_CONFIG is already generated by Fn + F# on some ThinkPads to launch
>>>>>> the GNOME/KDE control center/panel and I believe that at least GNOME
>>>>>> comes with a default binding to map KEY_CONFIG to the control-center.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not KEY_CONTROLPANEL?
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there devices that use both Fn+# and the doubleclick? Would it be an
>>>>> acceptable behavior for the users to have them behave the same?
>>>>>
>>>> Catching up with the thread, thanks for all the comments.
>>>>
>>>> For FN+N (originally KEY_DEBUG_SYS_INFO) the proposal was to now use
>>>> KEY_VENDOR there. My conclusion was that this is targeting vendor
>>>> specific functionality, and that was the closest fit, if a new keycode
>>>> was not preferred.
>>>
>>> Fn+N -> KEY_VENDOR mapping sounds good to me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> For the doubletap (which is a unique input event - not related to the
>>>> pointer) I would like to keep it as a new unique event. 
>>>>
>>>> I think it's most likely use would be for control panel, but I don't
>>>> think it should be limited to that. I can see it being useful if users
>>>> are able to reconfigure it to launch something different (browser or
>>>> music player maybe?), hence it would be best if it did not conflict
>>>> with an existing keycode function. I also can't confirm it doesn't
>>>> clash on existing or future systems - it's possible.
>>>
>>> So here is the problem. Keycodes in linux input are not mere
>>> placeholders for something that will be decided later how it is to be
>>> used, they are supposed to communicate intent and userspace ideally does
>>> not need to have any additional knowledge about where the event is
>>> coming from. A keyboard either internal or external sends KEY_SCREENLOCK
>>> and the system should lock the screen. It should not be aware that one
>>> device was a generic USB external keyboard while another had an internal
>>> sensor that recognized hovering palm making swiping motion to the right
>>> because a vendor decided to make it. Otherwise you have millions of
>>> input devices all generating unique codes and you need userspace to
>>> decide how to interpret data coming from each device individually.
>>>
>>> If you truly do not have a defined use case for it you have a couple
>>> options:
>>>
>>> - assign it KEY_RESERVED, ensure your driver allows remapping to an
>>>   arbitrary keycode, let user or distro assign desired keycode to it
>>>
>>> - assign KEY_PROG1 .. KEY_PROG4 - pretty much the same - leave it in the
>>>   hand of the user to define a shortcut in their DE to make it useful
>>>
>>>>
>>>> FWIW - I wouldn't be surprised with some of the new gaming systems
>>>> we're seeing (Steamdeck, Legion-Go, etc), that a doubletap event on a
>>>> joystick might be useful to have, if the HW supports it?
>>>
>>> What would it do exactly? Once we have this answer we can define key or
>>> button code (although I do agree that game controller buttons are
>>> different from "normal" keys because they map to the geometry of the
>>> controller which in turn defines their commonly understood function).
>>>
>>> But in any case you would not reuse the same keycode for something that
>>> is supposed to invoke a configuration utility and also to let's say
>>> drop a flash grenade in a game.
>>>
>> 
>> Understood.
>> 
>> I don't see a path forward within your stated parameters. I did not realise that there were such limitations, so my apologies for wasting everybody's time, and thank you for your patience and guidance.
>> 
>> I will drop this patch from the series and proceed using existing defined codes only.
>> 
>> Hans, I'll need to rejig things a bits but I have some ideas and I think I can make it work and stay within the pdx86 tree, which will make it simpler.
>
> Ok this sounds good to me. For Fn + N using KEY_VENDOR sounds good for
> me and for the doubletap any one of 
> KEY_CONFIG/KEY_CONTROLPANEL/KEY_INFO/KEY_PROG1
> or some other suitable KEY_foo define works for me.
>
I think this should be a configurable input, by design. So my preference (if not allowed a new keycode, which I personally think is the better option) is for PROG1.

I discussed with Peter last night and it looks likely OK on their side. I do plan on doing some testing first, so it might take a few days to get the next set of patches out.

Mark