Open benjizhai opened 3 years ago
Keep in mind that encoders are currently the only type of sensor, but other types of sensors will likely be added in the future (sliders, trackballs, accelerometers?, etc.). Should these special layers only apply to encoders or to all sensors at the same time?
Thanks @benjizhai!
@joelspadin, I can envisage use cases for them, but they'd need to be optional. I believe @petejohanson's also keeping multiple types of sensors in mind as he revisits inter-node communications.
Also, let's keep in mind that we're currently fitting our square pegs into DT's round holes, so there might be come a point where it's wiser just to start working on the successor (built for purpose) rather than burning time trying to it with the current system.
Generally speaking I'd like us to avoid the route of duplicating behaviors. This has been discussed at length in #213, so I think we should think outside the box a bit before going down this path.
Problem
The encoder (AB and pushbutton) functions are defined per layer. Adding multiple functions to encoders are cumbersome and would involve many duplications of each layer.
Proposal
&trans
is defined then no override takes place.&emo
, "encoder toggle"&etog
, and "encoder layer raise/lower"&einc
&edec
references.Example
An example keymap with 2 normal keys and 2 encoders.
And define which keys in the key matrix correspond to encoder pushbuttons in .dtsi file