Message-ID: <ea88c72e-a03f-4aac-9182-ece94fb99e54@tuxedocomputers.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:39:24 +0100
From: Werner Sembach <wse@...edocomputers.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Armin Wolf <W_Armin@....de>,
 Benjamin Tissoires <bentiss@...nel.org>, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
 jelle@...aa.nl, jikos@...nel.org, lee@...nel.org,
 linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-leds@...r.kernel.org, miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com,
 ojeda@...nel.org, onitake@...il.com, cs@...edo.de,
 platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/1] platform/x86/tuxedo: Add virtual LampArray for
 TUXEDO NB04 devices

Hi,

Am 06.02.25 um 17:18 schrieb Werner Sembach:
> Hi,
>
> Am 01.02.25 um 09:48 schrieb Pavel Machek:
>> Hi!
>>
>>>> I now got my feet a little wet with hid-bpf regarding something else, and
>>>> with that knowledge I would leave the long arrays in the beginning in the
>>>> kernel code for the time being:
>>>>
>>>> sirius_16_ansii_kbl_mapping and sirius_16_iso_kbl_mapping are required
>>>> during initialization so they have to exist in the kernel code anyway.
>>>>
>>>> report_descriptor will most likly not change even for future models and
>>>> afaik having report_descriptors in kernel drivers is not unheard of.
>>>>
>>>> So the only things that could be meaningfully moved to a hid-bpf program
>>>> are the sirius_16_*_kbl_mapping_pos_* arrays. But for these is have to give
>>>> out some fallback value anyway for the case where a hid-bpf file is missing
>>>> or fails to load. So why not use real world values from my test device for
>>>> these values?
>>>>
>>>> As soon as there is a future device that can use the same driver with just
>>>> these pos arrays different, then I would implement that change via a bpf
>>>> program instead of a change to the kernel driver.
>>>>
>>>> Let me know if you too think this is a sensefull approach?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another question: Would this patch need to wait for a userspace
>>>> implementation of lamp array before it can get accepted?
>>> It would be nice if you could test the LampArray implementation. But other 
>>> than that
>>> userspace can catch up later.
>>>
>>> Still, i am interested in the opinion of the LED maintainers
>>> regarding the fake HID interface.
>> Comments from previous review were not addressed.
>>
>> Most importantly, this is not a way to do kernel interface. We want
>> reasonable interface that can be documented and modified as needed. We
>> want to pass /dev/input to userspace, not raw HID. This is not ok.
>
> There are already 2 endless discussions about this:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/1fb08a74-62c7-4d0c-ba5d-648e23082dcb@tuxedocomputers.com/ 
>
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/73c36418-34d6-46cf-9f10-6ca5e569274f@tuxedocomputers.com/ 
>
>
> And a shorter one before that:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/30cbbf20-08cf-a69b-4f58-359a9802e86f@tuxedocomputers.com/ 
>
>
> The brief:
>
> - LampArray is a standard that will hit the Linux world anyway.
>
> - The alternative proposal via a led matrix does not even really fit 
> keyboards, and does not at all fit all other device types.
>
> Hans and Benjamin already agree with me that LampArray is the way to go.
>
> So after over 2 years can I please have a final decision on how to implement 
> this?

Any update?

Best regards,

Werner Sembach

>
> Regards,
>
> Werner
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>                                 Pavel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists