From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] HID: quirks: Refactor ELAN 400 and 401 handling Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 15:37:15 +0100 Message-ID: <20190612143715.GC4660@dell> References: <20190606161055.47089-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> <20190606161322.47192-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> <20190612003507.GG143729@dtor-ws> <2282f3e1-e76a-4fe7-d447-51d9a4bee2de@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2282f3e1-e76a-4fe7-d447-51d9a4bee2de@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeffrey Hugo Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Jeffrey Hugo , benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, agross@kernel.org, david.brown@linaro.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 12 Jun 2019, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > On 6/11/2019 6:35 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 09:13:22AM -0700, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > > There needs to be coordination between hid-quirks and the elan_i2c driver > > > about which devices are handled by what drivers. Currently, both use > > > whitelists, which results in valid devices being unhandled by default, > > > when they should not be rejected by hid-quirks. This is quickly becoming > > > an issue. > > > > > > Since elan_i2c has a maintained whitelist of what devices it will handle, > > > use that to implement a blacklist in hid-quirks so that only the devices > > > that need to be handled by elan_i2c get rejected by hid-quirks, and > > > everything else is handled by default. The downside is the whitelist and > > > blacklist need to be kept in sync. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Benjamin Tissoires > > > Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo > > > --- > > > drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > > > index e5ca6fe2ca57..edebd0700e3d 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > > > @@ -912,8 +912,66 @@ static const struct hid_device_id hid_mouse_ignore_list[] = { > > > { } > > > }; > > > +/* > > > + * List of device names that elan_i2c is handling and HID should ignore. Must > > > + * be kept in sync with elan_i2c > > > + */ > > > +static const char *hid_elan_i2c_ignore[] = { > > > > If this is a copy of elan whitelist, then, if we do not want to bother > > with sharing it in object form (as a elan-i2c-ids module), can we at > > least move it into include/linux/input/elan-i2c-ids.h and consume from > > hid-quirks.c? > > I can put it in a shared header file, however elan-i2c and hid-quirks > would need to be updated in the same change to prevent a breakage, but > that would seem to violate a concern Benjamin brought up in v4 given > that elan-i2c is maintained in your input tree, and hid-quirks is > maintained in his hid tree. > > Are you ok with the elan-i2c changes going through Benjamin's hid tree? We co-ordinate cross-subsystem merges all the time. That is never a reason to not do the 'right thing (tm)'. If this information can be held in a single, central place, without the need for constant re-alignment, I'm all for it. -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog