[OpenBIOS] [PATCH] Adds the get-key-map word to the keyboard node.

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> I haven't contacted the QEMU mailing list. The get-key-map word  
>>> appears to be an Apple added word, so other OS's will not use it.  
>>> You don't like the fact the Control key is mapped as the Command  
>>> key. QEMU currently does not send the Command key to the emulated  
>>> system.
>>
>> I suspect you're just not asking it properly.
>
> Asking? Asking what?

You should ask for the raw key events, not the cooked ASCII stuff.

> What is so bad about using the Control key in place of the Command  
> key?

What is so bad about using a shoe instead of a hammer to drive in a  
nail?
It might work for you, but you are asking everyone to use their shoe as
a hammer.

Besides, you are not solving the problem at all.

>>> l with if the Command key were sent to the guest OS. If QEMU was  
>>> placed in full screen mode, how would the user return to windowed  
>>> mode? Command-F wouldn't work any more.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
> The Command-F sequence would go straight to the emulated  
> environment. Not to QEMU.

No, it always goes to QEMU first.  Or your window manager eats it, but
that's a separate problem (and different on every OS / windowing  
system).

>>> Another issue is what word would we use to detect the Command  
>>> key? The "key" word is what I use to detect the pushed key on the  
>>> keyboard. Would this word be able to detect the Command key?
>>
>> KEY will not do anything for the control key, either.  You want EKEY
>> (or some custom word, of course).
>
> So now all we need is the EKEY word. You care to implement it?

No.  You want the change, you do the work.

And (as I hinted) you probably do not want EKEY but some custom stuff --
like, something very similar to the Apple OF key-map thing.


If you want to only use ASCII input devices, and emulate what Apple OF
does, you should emulate what Apple OF does with ASCII input devices
(like serial ports, or telnet).  You can set OSX verbose boot with
that as well.  Adding a terribly hacky non-compatible way to be
"compatible" is not going to fly, esp. not because you make it clear
that you only want to do it this way because you cannot be bothered
to do the work needed to do it properly.


Segher