By Date: <-- -->
By Thread: <-- -->

IR Keycodes and X

Am Freitag, den 12.05.2006, 03:30 +0400 schrieb Nickolay V. Shmyrev:
> Ð ÐÑÐ, 12/05/2006 Ð 09:12 +1000, Malcolm V ÐÐÑÐÑ:
> > HI,
> >   I'm creating a patch for the Winfast DTV2000H, the remote it comes with has 
> > 49 keys with 48 keycodes (it has two stop buttons). I notice that current 
> > remotes use a lot of keycodes which return a value above 255 (eg KEY_RADIO, 
> > which is 0x181 (385)). Whilst this works fine for console apps, my version of 
> > X doesn't allow keyvalues over 255, so I can't use a simple xmodmap overlay 
> > to access these keypresses.
> > 
> >   So after initially creating the key_code table like so:
> > 	...,
> > 	[ 55 ] = KEY_RADIO.
> > 	...,
> > 
> >   I am left with a "dead" key in X. Remapping this with:
> > 
> > #define XKEY_RADIO = KEY_F14
> > 	...,
> > 	[ 55 ] = XKEY_RADIO,
> > 	...,
> > 
> > gives me an ugly hack which allows the keypress to be xmodmap'd. It also means 
> > that should X come to understand keypresses above 255, the #define can be 
> > removed from the code and the X removed from XKEY_RADIO and it will just 
> > work.
> > 
> > Have I missed something in X which allows me to read keycodes above 255?
> > 
> >   My remote is the big brother of the current winfast remote already in the 
> > code, it has most of the keycodes for that remote plus more. Rather then 
> > create a new remote definition, it would make sense to just extend the 
> > current one. However, making the above mentioned changes would mean remapping 
> > codes for the existing remote for those keys return values above 255, which 
> > will probably break something for someone. Is that a good idea?
> > 
> >   There is so much redirection already involved in the process of going from 
> > gpio to keypress to X kbd mapping to X scancode, etc that I don't really want 
> > to involve lirc in the mix, but perhaps that is a mistake, thoughts?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Malcolm V.
> 
> That is very interesting problem, but sadly it's not v4l question. You
> need to ask Xorg developers about that.
[...]

Hi,

confirmed, the #255 problem is definitely a X limitation.

Cheers,
Hermann





--
video4linux-list mailing list
Unsubscribe mailto:video4linux-list-request (at) redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/video4linux-list