linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] HID: sensor-hub: don't limit the driver only to USB bus

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:	Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:13:49 +0100
From:	Alexander Holler <holler@...oftware.de>
To:	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, srinivas.pandruvada@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] HID: sensor-hub: don't limit the driver only to USB
 bus

Am 18.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Mika Westerberg:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:37:52PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>> Am 18.02.2013 12:33, schrieb Mika Westerberg:
>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:22:58PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>> Am 18.02.2013 12:12, schrieb Mika Westerberg:
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:03:04PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote:
>>>>>> Am 11.02.2013 11:31, schrieb Mika Westerberg:
>>>>>>> We now have two transport mediums: USB and I2C, where sensor hubs can
>>>>>>> exists. So instead of constraining the driver to only these two we let it
>>>>>>> to match any HID bus as long as the group is HID_GROUP_SENSOR_HUB.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>   drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c |    3 ++-
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c b/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
>>>>>>> index 2643bce9..c01f10d 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-sensor-hub.c
>>>>>>> @@ -603,7 +603,8 @@ static void sensor_hub_remove(struct hid_device *hdev)
>>>>>>>   }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   static const struct hid_device_id sensor_hub_devices[] = {
>>>>>>> -	{ HID_DEVICE(BUS_USB, HID_GROUP_SENSOR_HUB, HID_ANY_ID, HID_ANY_ID) },
>>>>>>> +	{ HID_DEVICE(HID_BUS_ANY, HID_GROUP_SENSOR_HUB, HID_ANY_ID,
>>>>>>> +		     HID_ANY_ID) },
>>>>>>>   	{ }
>>>>>>>   };
>>>>>>>   MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(hid, sensor_hub_devices);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm, what happens with Bluetooth sensor-hubs? Is the driver now able
>>>>>> to handle them too?
>>>>>
>>>>> It should, yes.
>>>>
>>>> If so, I think patch 1/3 should be modified accordingly.
>>>
>>> Do you know if such devices exists currently? If not, I'm not sure if it
>>> makes sense to do that now.
>>
>> The CC2541DK-SENSOR from TI looks like one. But I'm not sure as I
>> don't have one. Besides that, I think Bluetooth (especially with
>> BT4LE) will be by far the most used bus for sensors hubs.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> In that case I think it's best to remove the explicit bus check from the
> condition completely and rely on the fact that page == HID_UP_SENSOR.
>
> Since Jiri already applied this patch, I can make an incremental patch
> which removes the explicit bus check, if there are no objections.
>

I just had a deeper look at the spec for that TI device. Looks like the 
default firmware uses GATT and not HID. But nevertheless, if the driver 
does support Bluetooth too, I think enabling it makes sense.

Regards,

Alexander
--
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/