Refactor and Configurator updates for AMJ Pad

[noroadsleft]

No description provided.

[drashna]

LAYOYUT_ortho_6x4 maybe? :)

[drashna]

There are a couple of 6 row keypads. Maybe we should have some layouts for them?

[noroadsleft]

I had actually considered doing just that, but I wasn't sure 1) if it was wanted and a good idea, and 2) what changes it would require of my workflow, if any.

I was thinking of something like the following:

• LAYOUT_ortho_6x4
• LAYOUT_ortho_5x4
• LAYOUT_numpad_6x4
• LAYOUT_numpad_5x4

numpad layouts would be 2u Num 0 with Num + and Num Enter both vertical.

The caveat I have about these is some numpads are wired where the vertical keys are on the 789 and 123 rows, and some are 456 and 0. rows. So not sure if the numpad ones are a good idea because of that.

[drashna]

Sounds good.

And for the odd boards, LAYOUT_numpad_offset or the like may be a good idea.

[noroadsleft]

How do we decide which one is offset, though?

Also, did you want me to actually recommit LAYOUT_all as LAYOUT_ortho_6x4?

[drashna]

Oh, you mean the actual matrix placement?

In theory, that shouldn't matter, if the macro is set to handle that, Though, visually, ... that would matter, wouldn't it.

Visually, I think that 456/0 would be better visually, since it makes the space more obvious.

[noroadsleft]

Below is what I'm talking about:

Basically, either the style on the left or the one on the right becomes LAYOUT_numpad_5x4, and the other is LAYOUT_numpad_5x4_offset or something like that. Keymaps written for one don't work on the other (different number of keys per row), and how do we make this plain/obvious for other people contributing?

This also disregards the possibility someone makes a PCB/matrix where the 2u Num 0 key is col1 instead of col0. Or some hodgepodge of all the above.

[drashna]

The key config is the same, right? Eg, the placement for users is the same.

In that case, it doesn't matter for the LAYOUT. That's the point. The reason we use the LAYOUT macro is so that we can remap the matrix.

So, both of these work on the same layout:

#define LAYOUT_numpad_5x4( \
  k00, k01, k02, k03, \
  k10, k11, k12, k13, \
  k20, k21, k22, \
  k30, k31, k32, k33, \
  k40, k42 \
) \
{ \
  {k00, k01, k02, k03}, \
  {k10, k11, k12, k13}, \
  {k20, k21, k22, XXX}, \
  {k30, k31, k32, k33}, \
  {k40, XXX, k42, XXX}, \
}

#define LAYOUT_numpad_5x4( \
  k00, k01, k02, k03, \
  k10, k11, k12, k23, \
  k20, k21, k22, \
  k30, k31, k32, k43, \
  k40, k42 \
) \
{ \
  {k00, k01, k02, k03}, \
  {k10, k11, k12, XXX}, \
  {k20, k21, k22, k23}, \
  {k30, k31, k32, XXX}, \
  {k40, XXX, k42, k43}, \
}

The matrix itself is different, but the LAYOUT/keymap is the same for both boards.

[drashna]

Though, this would look better:

#define LAYOUT_numpad_5x4( \
  k00, k01, k02, k03, \
  k10, k11, k12,      \
  k20, k21, k22, k13, \
  k30, k31, k32,      \
  k40, k42,      k33, \
) \

[drashna]

Looks great!