On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:02:41 -0500 Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > > > Il 22/04/2013 14:43, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto: > >>> > > >>> > You're right. The typematic delay/rate is implemented within the i8042 > >>> > keyboard microcontroller (QEMU does not implement that register). > >>> > > >>> > It is possible that software ignores interrupts for a key that is > >>> > already down, and reimplements autorepeat in software, but your patch is > >>> > correct. > >> But isn't this patch the equivalent of repeatedly pressing and releasing a > >> key? Shouldn't this be implemented at a lower-level layer like the input > >> subsystem? > > > > No, this patch is implementing what the microcontroller does, i.e. 10 > > presses + 1 release. I'm not sure it is the right level to do it (the > > rate/delay should be at least customizable from the board), but the > > logic is right and if someone else needs more configurability we can add > > it later. > > Regardless, this is a compat breaker IMHO. This is a dramatically > different semantic behavior. > > What's the use-case here? This was reported by Zhenfeng Wang, my impression is that Zhenfeng had the (resonable) expectation that this would work like in bare metal, but I don't think there's a specific use-case behind here. Am I correct Zhenfeng?
