[PATCH v4 7/7] Input: Add "inhibited" property

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:12:49PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 06:11:02PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 03:04:28PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > 
> > > W dniu 05.10.2020 o 20:10, Dmitry Torokhov pisze:
> > > > Hi Andrzej,
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 01:22:11PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
> > > > > @@ -284,8 +284,11 @@ static int input_get_disposition(struct input_dev *dev,
> > > > >   	case EV_KEY:
> > > > >   		if (is_event_supported(code, dev->keybit, KEY_MAX)) {
> > > > > -			/* auto-repeat bypasses state updates */
> > > > > -			if (value == 2) {
> > > > > +			/*
> > > > > +			 * auto-repeat bypasses state updates but repeat
> > > > > +			 * events are ignored if the key is not pressed
> > > > > +			 */
> > > > > +			if (value == 2 && test_bit(code, dev->key)) {
> > > > >   				disposition = INPUT_PASS_TO_HANDLERS;
> > > > >   				break;
> > > > >   			}
> > > > 
> > > > Is this chunk really part of inhibit support? I'd think we cancel
> > > > autorepeat timer when we are releasing a key, no?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > When I look at it now it seems to me the chunk might be redundant.
> > > But let me explain what I had in mind when adding it.
> > > 
> > > It is a matter of what we do with input events generated while a
> > > device is inhibited. If ->open()/->close() are not provided by the
> > > driver then inhibiting amounts to merely ignoring input events from
> > > a device while it remains active. What else can you do if the driver
> > > does not provide a method to prepare the device for generating events/
> > > to stop generating events?
> > > 
> > > In this special case a user might trigger a repeated event while the
> > > device is inhibited, then the user keeps holding the key down and the
> > > device is uninhibited. Do we pass anything to handlers then?
> > > 
> > > In my opinion we should not. Such an event is "illegal" in a sense that it
> > > was generated at a time when nobody wanted any events from the device.
> > > Hence the test to let only those auto-repeat events through for which
> > > a key is actually pressed.
> > > 
> > > However, what I see now is that if a device is inhibited, no key
> > > will ever reach neither the "1" nor "2" state because of the "if"
> > > in the very beginning of input_handle_event().
> > 
> > OK, then let's drop it for now. We can revisit if we see that a problem.
> 
> And by that I mean that I will drop it myself, no need to resend. I will
> be applying this shortly.

Well, "shortly" was just a tad optimistic, but I did apply it ;)

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry