This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Paravirt framebuffer backend tools [2/5]

To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Paravirt framebuffer backend tools [2/5]
From: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:00:27 +0200
Cc: Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@xxxxxxxxxx>, sos22@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:01:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45016F8E.1030300@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Bull S.A.S.
References: <20060904090150.GC4812@xxxxxxxxx> <44FC224D.3090300@xxxxxxxx> <20060906091505.GD3257@xxxxxxxxx> <44FEB3DE.5070502@xxxxxxxx> <20060906171006.GA5306@xxxxxxxxx> <44FFCAC0.6060809@xxxxxxxx> <20060907083848.GA3078@xxxxxxxxx> <45016F8E.1030300@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20060420)
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Steven Smith wrote:
>> First: I now agree with you that scancodes are a better choice than
>> keysyms, and that I was wrong initially.
> The problem with scancodes is that you cannot always get scancodes from
> the viewer.  You can get scancodes from SDL but you can only get keysyms


> from VNC.  We would have to map VNC keysyms (which are just Xk keysyms)
> to scancodes?

It's what we already did: KEY_* are scancodes.
It's why it should be better to get scancodes from the viewer, not keysyms.

we get keysyms from VNC and SDL and we translate to scancode for linux kernel.

What I propose:
we get scancode from SDL and we translate to scancode for linux kernel.
We must keep keysyms from VNC because we can't have scancode from VNC client.

> I'm a bit surprised here.  If we generate a KEY_Q event in Linux that
> may show up as a KEY_A key?  There are keysyms for all the extended keys
> I thought.

I'm sorry but I think you didn't understand the issue: we must provide scancode
to frontend keyboard driver (KEY_*), and the current issue is in translating
keysyms to scancode. Please have look at all previous e-mails...

         Bull, Architect of an Open World (TM)
+----- "Any sufficiently advanced technology is ----+
| indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Xen-devel mailing list
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>