linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Input: xpad - Implement wireless controller LED setting and fix connect time LED setting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:30:23 -0800
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Chris Moeller <kode54@...il.com>
Cc:	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Input: xpad - Implement wireless controller LED setting and fix connect time LED setting

Hi Chris,

On Friday, November 30, 2012 01:54:06 PM Chris Moeller wrote:
> I've submitted versions of this with prior patch sets, and this part
> was never accepted, possibly because it depended on other patches to
> work, or possibly because it wasn't so cleanly organized. This time,
> I've split the LED setting command off into its own static function,
> then call that on controller connect and optionally on LED setting
> commands. The static function does not include any locking, because
> locking inside the function which receives the incoming packets
> deadlocks the driver, and does not appear to be necessary anyway.
> 
> It also removes all traces of the original bulk out function which was
> designed for the purpose of setting the LED status on connect, as I
> found that it actually does not work at all. It appears to try to send
> the data, but nothing actually happens to the controller LEDs.

Attached is a reply I sent to on 7/4/11 to which you unfortunately never
responded. The issue is that of force feedback (rumble) and LED share the
same URB then access to that URB should be arbitrated. The attached
message contains a patch that attempts to implement that arbitration,
could you please try it out and see what changes are needed to make it
work?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
Download attachment "forwarded message" of type "message/rfc822" (21486 bytes)