Thread (7 messages) 7 messages, 4 authors, 2010-09-15

Re: HID: Allow changing not-yet-mapped usages

From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Date: 2010-09-15 16:16:58

Hi Jiri,

On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 04:48:42PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
quoted
@@ -77,7 +77,10 @@ static bool match_scancode(struct hid_usage *usage,
 static bool match_keycode(struct hid_usage *usage,
 			  unsigned int cur_idx, unsigned int keycode)
 {
-	return usage->code == keycode;
+	/*
+	 * We should exclude unmapped usages when doing lookup by keycode.
+	 */
+	return usage->type == EV_KEY && usage->code == keycode;
This is for some reason hurting my eyes. It'd seem much more readable to 
me if the condition would be enclosed in brackets, purely for sake for 
readability. What do you think?
Like this:

	return (usage->type == EV_KEY && usage->code == keycode);

?

We normally do not enclose return expression in parenthesis but why
not...

Alternatively we could code it as an "if" statement.
quoted
 }
 
 static bool match_index(struct hid_usage *usage,
@@ -103,7 +106,7 @@ static struct hid_usage *hidinput_find_key(struct hid_device *hid,
 			for (i = 0; i < report->maxfield; i++) {
 				for (j = 0; j < report->field[i]->maxusage; j++) {
 					usage = report->field[i]->usage + j;
-					if (usage->type == EV_KEY) {
+					if (usage->type == EV_KEY || usage->type == 0) {
 						if (match(usage, cur_idx, value)) {
 							if (usage_idx)
 								*usage_idx = cur_idx;
@@ -144,7 +147,8 @@ static int hidinput_getkeycode(struct input_dev *dev,
 
 	usage = hidinput_locate_usage(hid, ke, &index);
 	if (usage) {
-		ke->keycode = usage->code;
+		ke->keycode = usage->type == EV_KEY ?
+				usage->code : KEY_RESERVED;
 		ke->index = index;
 		scancode = usage->hid & (HID_USAGE_PAGE | HID_USAGE);
 		ke->len = sizeof(scancode);
@@ -164,7 +168,8 @@ static int hidinput_setkeycode(struct input_dev *dev,
 
 	usage = hidinput_locate_usage(hid, ke, NULL);
 	if (usage) {
-		*old_keycode = usage->code;
+		*old_keycode = usage->type == EV_KEY ?
+				usage->code : KEY_RESERVED;
 		usage->code = ke->keycode;
 
 		clear_bit(*old_keycode, dev->keybit);
I guess you will be taking it through your tree together with all your 
keycode handling patches, right?
Yes, as long as you are OK with it.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help