[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANq1E4QvC936A_r6GPgO_gikpXGrD6UwBdBEcwUBwtjxW9iw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:35:08 +0100
From: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...il.com>,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
"open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/14] HID: input: hid-input remove hid_output_raw_report call
Hi
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
> hid_output_raw_report() is not a ll_driver callback and should not be used.
> To keep the same code path than before, we are forced to play with the
> different hid_hw_* calls: if the usb or i2c device does not support
> direct output reports, then we will rely on the SET_REPORT HID call.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-input.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> index eb00a5b..6b7bdca 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-input.c
> @@ -1153,7 +1153,7 @@ static void hidinput_led_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> led_work);
> struct hid_field *field;
> struct hid_report *report;
> - int len;
> + int len, ret;
> __u8 *buf;
>
> field = hidinput_get_led_field(hid);
> @@ -1187,7 +1187,10 @@ static void hidinput_led_worker(struct work_struct *work)
>
> hid_output_report(report, buf);
> /* synchronous output report */
> - hid_output_raw_report(hid, buf, len, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT);
> + ret = hid_hw_output_report(hid, buf, len);
> + if (ret == -ENOSYS)
> + hid_hw_raw_request(hid, buf[0], buf, len, HID_OUTPUT_REPORT,
> + HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
Does HID core always set the report-id in buf[0]? Even if none are
used? I know the incoming data may lack the report-id, but I always
thought we do the same for outgoing if it's implicit?
I also already see devices with broken OUTPUT_REPORTs.. I guess at
some point we have to introduce a quirk-flag to choose between both
calls. But lets wait for that to happen, maybe we're lucky.
> kfree(buf);
> }
>
> @@ -1266,7 +1269,8 @@ static struct hid_input *hidinput_allocate(struct hid_device *hid)
> }
>
> input_set_drvdata(input_dev, hid);
> - if (hid->ll_driver->request || hid->hid_output_raw_report)
> + if (hid->ll_driver->request || hid->ll_driver->output_report ||
> + hid->ll_driver->raw_request)
Isn't raw_request mandatory? So we could remove that whole if() thing here.
Thanks
David
> input_dev->event = hidinput_input_event;
> input_dev->open = hidinput_open;
> input_dev->close = hidinput_close;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
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