[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110224204300.GA2423@polaris.bitmath.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 21:43:00 +0100
From: "Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@...omail.se>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...c.fr>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Stéphane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: Do not create input devices for feature reports
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> Thanks for spotting this. BTW, I'm not happy with your solution.
>
> You are sending the feature report before creating the struct
> hid_input. To be consistent with the rest, we have to keep the same
> signature. Today, the code does not make any use of it. But I use it
> in my devel branch to auto-detect the maximum contact count of the
> device. This was the safest place to call input_mt_init_slots.
Well, the whole point is "which input device". It would only be
well-defined when the hid device has a single input device. The
feature callback could be called last, however, if that helps.
> How about adding hidinput as an argument to report_features
>
> and calling it after the " for (k = HID_INPUT_REPORT; k <=
> HID_OUTPUT_REPORT; k++) {" loop with
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(hidinput, next, &hid->inputs, list)
> report_features(hid, hidinput);
>
> I did not even try to compile it right now (I don't have any
> multitouch device right now) but I'll be able to make further tests
> tomorrow.
Thanks,
Henrik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists