Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752056AbbKJJX3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 04:23:29 -0500 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com ([74.125.82.52]:34864 "EHLO mail-wm0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751861AbbKJJXZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Nov 2015 04:23:25 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151109231351.GD9155@dtor-ws> References: <1446766616-30258-1-git-send-email-aduggan@synaptics.com> <20151109231351.GD9155@dtor-ws> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:23:23 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/26] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - add a common input device in rmi_driver From: Benjamin Tissoires To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Andrew Duggan , linux-input , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Benjamin Tissoires , Linus Walleij , Christopher Heiny , Stephen Chandler Paul Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 7596 Lines: 235 On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:13 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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? Actually, I think the test is need needed. rmi_f01_get_product_ID() returns a pointer to an array embedded in struct f01_data. rmi_driver_set_input_name() is called after f01 has been initialized and I think if there is an error while processing f01 we bail out. So basically device_name can not be null. (If I read the code correctly). > >> + >> + 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? Right now, yes. This function is called only in probe. > What about errors? > Indeed, I should have tackled these first :( >> + >> + 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.) oops, my 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? yes, we need to change it > >> + } >> + >> 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()? Works for me. > >> + >> 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. > Thanks for the review! Cheers, Benjamin -- 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/