[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160905135545.GL21864@mail.corp.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 15:55:45 +0200
From: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
To: Hn Chen <hn.chen@...dahitech.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: wdt87xx_i2c - support new body WDT8752
Hi HN,
On Sep 05 2016 or thereabouts, Hn Chen wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> >> Considering to be compatible with i2c-hid, WDT8752 has the same way in
> >> enumerating device.
> >If it is a HID device then I think you should write a HID driver for it (unless existing driver, such as hid-multitouch can already handle it, possibly >with some changes). I'm addng Benjamin to he can comment as well.
> The device can be handled by i2c-hid driver (HID over I2C) already but this proprietary driver still is a must-have for more features.
Then what are those must-have features? From what I can read, only the
reflashing firmware is part of it. Unless there is something else, I
really don't understand why you can't have a hid-weidatech driver that
could handle the specific bits while leaving the rest to i2c-hid.
Also, I am not sure if your driver doesn't interfere with i2c-hid as you
are claiming the device through the ACPI ID "WDHT0001" but there should
be some PNP IDs "PNP0C50" if it were declared as i2c-hid. If both are
set, then the fact your driver is picked up seems to be pure luck: there
will be a race between the probe of your driver and i2c-hid, which is
not something you want.
If there are some issues with i2c-hid, I'd like also to know them
because if we fix them for you there is a high chance other vendors
will benefit from those fixes too.
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> >> And also modify the part of FW update to be more efficiency. The main
> >> modification is that reducing the amount of data transmitted and using
> >> polling for time comsuming operation.
> >>
> >> Flash erase will wait 50ms for the operation complete in last driver.
> >> Extend it to 200ms since the spec says the typical is 30ms but the max
> >> is 200ms.
> >This should be split into a separate patch please.
> Ok, I will resubmit the part of possible-issue fixing and then the driver patch for supporting WDT8752 again.
> Please ignore this submission.
>
> Hn.chen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists