Bug#307327: kernel-source-2.6.11: [powerpc] fn-key does not work on new powerbooks
tags 307327 +upstream
reassign linux-2.6
thanks
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:20:56PM +0200, Stelian Pop wrote:
> Le vendredi 12 août 2005 à 15:03 +0100, Jochen Voss a écrit :
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 07:09:55PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > [the fn key patch] seems fine enough to me, has is been submitted upstream?
> >
> > I don't know. In
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-powerpc/2005/07/msg00370.html
> >
> > Stelian Pop (CCed) asked whether he should push this into the mainstream
> > kernel, but I do not know the final outcome of this. Stelian: what is
> > the current state of this?
>
> The current state is that the patch has been discussed on lkml and in
> private with Vojtech Pavlik, the kernel input subsystem maintainter.
>
> He didn't agree to the patch, considering that the "right control" key
> assignment is a hack and the key should send the "function key" keycode
> instead.
>
> A patch implementing this behaviour is already in the -mm kernel and it
> is reasonable to think that it will be in 2.6.14.
>
> The Fn key can be easily assigned to any X modifier (including "right
> control") using the standard xkb mappings.
>
> The only (big) downside is that the FN keycode will not be understood by
> the classic X keyboard driver (no events in xev for example), unless the
> new (and not upstream yet) input based X keyboard driver is used.
>
> I know Gentoo patched X in order to add this augmented driver, and that
> X.org will include the driver in a future release. But until then, this
> will require a patched X server.
Hi,
I am marking this bug as +upstream, as it has clearly been brought
to their attention. And I am also reassigning it to linux-2.6,
which is currently 2.6.12, and will soon enough be 2.6.13. I'm guessing
those upstreams don't have the -mm accepted fix, but that it will
appear sooner or later. If someone wants to dig that patch out
I don't see why it couldn't be include din the debian package,
our main requirement is that it is either upstream, or has
a clear path for being accepted upstream, and thus we don't have
to maintain divergance from upstream indefinately.
As for the xev, X, X.org, problem. That needs to be brought up with
their maintainers. I've debian-x@lists.debian.org, I think thats the
right place.
--
Horms
Reply to: