zmkfirmware
Incorrect key positioning for rotated keys
The layout at https://github.com/eli2c/zmk-config-ergo_wireless/blob/7fb5f574b039c9eb11149db2559ec22d1ac2ea25/config/boards/shields/ergo_wireless/ergo_wireless.dtsi#L1 should look like this
however, the creator of that config repo reported on Discord that it looks like this instead
I noticed that the rx and ry values are both zero. https://github.com/zmkfirmware/zmk-studio/blob/e5ab3b58f3ca720e1476df9141d31bb424db30eb/src/keyboard/PhysicalLayout.tsx#L57-L58 modifies the positioning if rx or ry are zero, which seems suspect.
But rx=ry=0 would be rotating around the top left corner of the whole keyboard, wouldn't it? If the keys are supposed to be rotated around their position, then the rx and ry should specify that position -- the centre of rotation.
I created a layout for an ErgoTravel keyboard, and to get the rotated keys to display correctly I had to make sure the rx and ry values are set to the correct rotation centre. See here: https://github.com/mhantsch/ergotravel-zmk-module/blob/main/boards/shields/ergotravel/ergotravel-layouts.dtsi
keys // w h x y rot rx ry
= <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 0 38 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 100 25 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 200 13 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 300 0 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 400 13 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 500 25 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 600 50 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 900 50 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1000 25 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1100 13 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1200 0 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1300 13 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1400 25 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1500 38 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 0 138 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 100 125 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 200 113 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 300 100 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 400 113 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 500 125 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 600 150 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 900 150 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1000 125 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1100 113 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1200 100 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1300 113 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1400 125 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1500 138 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 0 238 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 100 225 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 200 213 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 300 200 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 400 213 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 500 225 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 600 300 3000 700 350>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 900 300 (-3000) 900 350>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1000 225 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1100 213 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1200 200 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1300 213 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1400 225 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1500 238 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 0 338 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 100 325 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 200 313 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 300 300 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 125 100 425 325 1500 487 375>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 600 400 3000 700 350>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 700 360 0 0 0> // XtraLeft
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 800 360 0 0 0> // XtraRight
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 900 400 (-3000) 900 350>
, <&key_physical_attrs 125 100 1050 325 (-1500) 1112 375>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1200 300 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1300 313 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1400 325 0 0 0>
, <&key_physical_attrs 100 100 1500 338 0 0 0>
;
The intention is to default to key's own top-left (i.e. x, y) for rx, ry if they aren't specified at all. But because in the devicetree-format description 0 is also used for defaults, this creates a problem if you actually want rx, ry to be at 0, 0.
Since we can't distinguish 0 from undefined, it seems wise to assume that rx and ry should always be specified correctly if rotation is not zero, and not implement a fallback.
