From: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>
To: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@glider.be>,
linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@nvidia.com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, Wu Hao <hao.wu@intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@intel.com>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>,
Xu Yilun <yilun.xu@intel.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Input: add 'safe' user switch codes
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 12:00:37 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211105170037.GA65511@nixie71> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211105103508.4153491-1-kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
Hi Kieran,
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 10:35:07AM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote:
> All existing SW input codes define an action which can be interpreted by
> a user environment to adapt to the condition of the switch.
>
> For example, switches to define the audio mute, will prevent audio
> playback, and switches to indicate lid and covers being closed may
> disable displays.
>
> Many evaluation platforms provide switches which can be connected to the
> input system but associating these to an action incorrectly could
> provide inconsistent end user experiences due to unmarked switch
> positions.
>
> Define two custom user defined switches allowing hardware descriptions
> to be created whereby the position of the switch is not interpreted as
> any standard condition that will affect a user experience.
>
> This allows wiring up custom generic switches in a way that will allow
> them to be read and processed, without incurring undesired or otherwise
> undocumented (by the hardware) 'default' behaviours.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> ---
>
> Sigh, a compile test might have at least saved the buildbots the trouble
> of notifying me I also need to update the INPUT_DEVICE_ID_SW_MAX. But
> even so - I'm really looking for a discussion on the best ways to
> describe a non-defined switch in device tree.
>
> Here's a compiling v2 ;-) But the real questions are :
>
> - Should an existing feature switch be used for generic switches?
> - Should we even have a 'user' defined switch?
> - If we add user switches, how many?
>
This is merely my opinion, but if a hardware switch does not have a defined
purpose, it does not seem necessary to represent it with an input device.
If the goal is to simply perform validation of a driver and/or hardware, is
it not sufficient to map the switch to an existing code?
Similarly, there is no way to know if two are enough. What if we have a new
board tomorrow and need four?
>
> include/linux/mod_devicetable.h | 2 +-
> include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h | 4 +++-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> index ae2e75d15b21..dfa1e4f41cd8 100644
> --- a/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mod_devicetable.h
> @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ struct pcmcia_device_id {
> #define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_LED_MAX 0x0f
> #define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_SND_MAX 0x07
> #define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_FF_MAX 0x7f
> -#define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_SW_MAX 0x10
> +#define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_SW_MAX 0x12
> #define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_PROP_MAX 0x1f
>
> #define INPUT_DEVICE_ID_MATCH_BUS 1
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h b/include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h
> index 225ec87d4f22..84a7b3debcb3 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/input-event-codes.h
> @@ -894,7 +894,9 @@
> #define SW_MUTE_DEVICE 0x0e /* set = device disabled */
> #define SW_PEN_INSERTED 0x0f /* set = pen inserted */
> #define SW_MACHINE_COVER 0x10 /* set = cover closed */
> -#define SW_MAX 0x10
> +#define SW_1 0x11 /* set = user defined */
> +#define SW_2 0x12 /* set = user defined */
> +#define SW_MAX 0x12
> #define SW_CNT (SW_MAX+1)
>
> /*
> --
> 2.30.2
>
Kind regards,
Jeff LaBundy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-11-05 17:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-05 10:35 [PATCH v2] Input: add 'safe' user switch codes Kieran Bingham
2021-11-05 17:00 ` Jeff LaBundy [this message]
2021-11-05 23:04 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2021-11-06 10:13 ` Kieran Bingham
2021-11-07 6:17 ` Jeff LaBundy
2021-11-08 11:00 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2021-11-08 12:35 ` Kieran Bingham
2021-11-08 12:41 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211105170037.GA65511@nixie71 \
--to=jeff@labundy.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david.m.ertman@intel.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=geert@glider.be \
--cc=hao.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hdegoede@redhat.com \
--cc=kieran.bingham+renesas@ideasonboard.com \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luzmaximilian@gmail.com \
--cc=mgurtovoy@nvidia.com \
--cc=stephan@gerhold.net \
--cc=yilun.xu@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.