Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751708AbbKIXN4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:13:56 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:33461 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751058AbbKIXNy (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 18:13:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 15:13:51 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Andrew Duggan Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Tissoires , Linus Walleij , Benjamin Tissoires , Christopher Heiny , Stephen Chandler Paul Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/26] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - add a common input device in rmi_driver Message-ID: <20151109231351.GD9155@dtor-ws> References: <1446766616-30258-1-git-send-email-aduggan@synaptics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1446766616-30258-1-git-send-email-aduggan@synaptics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 6233 Lines: 208 On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 03:36:56PM -0800, Andrew Duggan wrote: > From: Benjamin Tissoires > > When .unified_input is set to true in the platform data, the > functions should rely on the common input node created by rmi_driver > to forward events instead of having their own input node. > > This node is named "Synaptics PRODUCT_ID" to be able to > differentiate the various models. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires > Tested-by: Andrew Duggan > --- > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.h | 6 ++++++ > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c | 7 +++++++ > include/linux/rmi.h | 2 ++ > 4 files changed, 58 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > index b9db709..95f9386 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > @@ -310,6 +310,9 @@ static int process_interrupt_requests(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev) > if (entry->irq_mask) > process_one_interrupt(data, entry); > > + if (data->input) > + input_sync(data->input); > + > return 0; > } > > @@ -330,6 +333,25 @@ static int rmi_driver_set_input_params(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, > return 0; > } > > +static void rmi_driver_set_input_name(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, > + struct input_dev *input) > +{ > + struct rmi_driver_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev); > + char *device_name = rmi_f01_get_product_ID(data->f01_container); > + char *name; > + > + if (!device_name) > + return; Should we still give device some name? > + > + name = devm_kasprintf(&rmi_dev->dev, GFP_KERNEL, > + "Synaptics %s", device_name); > + if (!name) > + return; Are we guaranteed that devm_kasprintf only called in probe() path? What about errors? > + > + input->name = name; > +} > + > + > static int rmi_driver_set_irq_bits(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, > unsigned long *mask) > { > @@ -720,6 +742,8 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev) > const struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata = > rmi_get_platform_data(rmi_dev); > > + if (data->input) > + input_unregister_device(data->input); Isn't this too early? Can sensor still be sending data here? (Looking... yeah, it looks like it can. Bad.) > disable_sensor(rmi_dev); > rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev); > > @@ -832,6 +856,15 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > data->current_irq_mask = irq_memory + size * 2; > data->new_irq_mask = irq_memory + size * 3; > > + if (pdata->unified_input) { > + data->input = input_allocate_device(); > + if (data->input) { > + rmi_driver_set_input_params(rmi_dev, data->input); > + sprintf(data->input_phys, "%s/input0", dev_name(dev)); > + data->input->phys = data->input_phys; > + } Bail if error? > + } > + > irq_count = 0; > dev_dbg(dev, "Creating functions."); > retval = rmi_scan_pdt(rmi_dev, &irq_count, rmi_create_function); > @@ -866,6 +899,15 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > mutex_init(&data->suspend_mutex); > } > > + if (data->input) { > + rmi_driver_set_input_name(rmi_dev, data->input); > + if (input_register_device(data->input)) { > + dev_err(dev, "%s: Failed to register input device.\n", > + __func__); > + goto err_destroy_functions; > + } > + } > + > if (gpio_is_valid(pdata->attn_gpio)) { > static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn"; > unsigned long gpio_flags = GPIOF_DIR_IN; > @@ -921,6 +963,7 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > return 0; > > err_destroy_functions: > + input_free_device(data->input); > rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev); > kfree(irq_memory); > err_free_mem: > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.h b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.h > index dda564f..36ca34b 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.h > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.h > @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > #include "rmi_bus.h" > > #define RMI_DRIVER_VERSION "1.6" > @@ -29,6 +30,8 @@ > > #define RMI_PDT_PROPS_HAS_BSR 0x02 > > +#define NAME_BUFFER_SIZE 256 > + > struct rmi_driver_data { > struct list_head function_list; > > @@ -49,6 +52,8 @@ struct rmi_driver_data { > unsigned long *current_irq_mask; > unsigned long *new_irq_mask; > struct mutex irq_mutex; > + struct input_dev *input; > + char input_phys[NAME_BUFFER_SIZE]; > > /* Following are used when polling. */ > struct hrtimer poll_timer; > @@ -112,6 +117,7 @@ void rmi_unregister_physical_driver(void); > > int rmi_register_f01_handler(void); > void rmi_unregister_f01_handler(void); > +char *rmi_f01_get_product_ID(struct rmi_function *fn); > > #ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_F11 > int rmi_register_f11_handler(void); > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c > index ee5f4a1..2d72dc8 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f01.c > @@ -176,6 +176,13 @@ static int rmi_f01_read_properties(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, > return 0; > } > > +char *rmi_f01_get_product_ID(struct rmi_function *fn) > +{ > + struct f01_data *f01 = dev_get_drvdata(&fn->dev); > + > + return f01->properties.product_id; > +} Should we have something like rmi_to_input_id() that is similar to usb_to_input_id()? > + > static int rmi_f01_probe(struct rmi_function *fn) > { > struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = fn->rmi_dev; > diff --git a/include/linux/rmi.h b/include/linux/rmi.h > index ca35b2f..1d22985 100644 > --- a/include/linux/rmi.h > +++ b/include/linux/rmi.h > @@ -277,6 +277,8 @@ struct rmi_device_platform_data { > struct rmi_f30_gpioled_map *gpioled_map; > struct rmi_button_map *f41_button_map; > > + bool unified_input; > + > #ifdef CONFIG_RMI4_FWLIB > char *firmware_name; > #endif > -- > 2.1.4 > Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/