Re: [PATCH v2 0/1] Input: xpad - Implement wireless controller LED setting and fix connect time LED setting

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 08:13:29PM -0800, Chris Moeller wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:30:23 -0800
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Chris,
> > 
> > On Friday, November 30, 2012 01:54:06 PM Chris Moeller wrote:
> > > I've submitted versions of this with prior patch sets, and this part
> > > was never accepted, possibly because it depended on other patches to
> > > work, or possibly because it wasn't so cleanly organized. This time,
> > > I've split the LED setting command off into its own static function,
> > > then call that on controller connect and optionally on LED setting
> > > commands. The static function does not include any locking, because
> > > locking inside the function which receives the incoming packets
> > > deadlocks the driver, and does not appear to be necessary anyway.
> > > 
> > > It also removes all traces of the original bulk out function which
> > > was designed for the purpose of setting the LED status on connect,
> > > as I found that it actually does not work at all. It appears to try
> > > to send the data, but nothing actually happens to the controller
> > > LEDs.
> > 
> > Attached is a reply I sent to on 7/4/11 to which you unfortunately
> > never responded. The issue is that of force feedback (rumble) and LED
> > share the same URB then access to that URB should be arbitrated. The
> > attached message contains a patch that attempts to implement that
> > arbitration, could you please try it out and see what changes are
> > needed to make it work?
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> 
> So sorry I missed your reply. That's what I get for filtering the
> mailing list messages past my inbox, then never following up on my
> filter/folder set for replies to my own messages. I recall you
> mentioned that potential race condition when I first submitted, but I
> forgot to do anything about it. I'm glad at least one of us has our
> stuff together. It seems to work just fine, but there may be a force
> feedback issue with the following test program, where it leaves the
> effect playing indefinitely after the program terminates, and then the
> controller itself ceases to respond until the module is removed and
> reloaded.

Just to confirm, you see this problem only with the patch being
discussed and do not see it without it, right?

-- 
Dmitry