From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264288AbTLYJ5D (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Dec 2003 04:57:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264289AbTLYJ5C (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Dec 2003 04:57:02 -0500 Received: from kweetal.tue.nl ([131.155.3.6]:19982 "EHLO kweetal.tue.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264288AbTLYJ4w (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Dec 2003 04:56:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 07:39:36 +0100 From: Andries Brouwer To: David Monro Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vojtech@suse.cz Subject: Re: handling an oddball PS/2 keyboard Message-ID: <20031225063936.GA15560@win.tue.nl> References: <3FEA5044.5090106@amberdata.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FEA5044.5090106@amberdata.demon.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 02:49:40AM +0000, David Monro wrote: > I have a slightly odd PS/2 keyboard which I'm not quite sure of the best > way to handle. Its an NCD N-97, which shipped with some NCD X terminals > and also with some Mips workstations IIRC. Most of the keys produce the > normal scancodes, and most which don't can be fixed using setkeycodes. > However there are 2 keys which can't be made to work, which are F9 and > F10. The problem is that these produce raw scancodes 0x60 and 0x61, > which means the _release_ codes (setting the top bit) are 0xe0 and 0xe1. Interesting. I rearranged my scancode data page a bit and added your info - see http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/kbd/scancodes-6.html Are your scancodes identical to those reported by Benjamin Carter? > So.. could I get a bunch of people to have a look in > /proc/bus/input/devices, and see what the 'Version' field for their > keyboard is? If it turns out that 0xab85 turns up on normal keyboards > then obviously I'll have to abandon the 2nd approach (or find another > way to ID it). The overwhelming majority of all keyboards give 0xab83, translated to 0xab41, incorrectly back translated by the 2.6 kernel to 0xab02. > What chance would either of these approaches have of getting merged? Yours is the second report I see for ID 0xab85. I have no information on the details of the other keyboard. I suppose Vojtech will have no objections to using this ID to skip the tests for e0 and e1 as protocol (escape) scancodes. Either everybody is happy, or we learn a bit more about unusual keyboards. Andries