From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755448AbcCCUrG (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:47:06 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:39359 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751938AbcCCUrE (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Mar 2016 15:47:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 12:47:02 -0800 From: Darren Hart To: =?utf-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBLxJlwaWXFhA==?= Cc: Pali =?iso-8859-1?Q?Roh=E1r?= , Matthew Garrett , Darek Stojaczyk , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/5] dell-wmi: properly process Dell Instant Launch hotkey Message-ID: <20160303204702.GE1092@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com> References: <1455634230-1487-1-git-send-email-kernel@kempniu.pl> <201602292139.16006@pali> <20160229204927.GB23568@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> <201602292156.03876@pali> <20160229230015.GF7499@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com> <20160302123504.GB25223@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> <20160303171655.GD1092@dvhart-mobl5.amr.corp.intel.com> <20160303184632.GA26514@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20160303184632.GA26514@eudyptula.hq.kempniu.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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