From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/5] HID: quirks: Refactor ELAN 400 and 401 handling Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 14:46:36 -0700 Message-ID: <20190612214636.GA40779@dtor-ws> References: <20190612212604.32089-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> <20190612212721.32195-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190612212721.32195-1-jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeffrey Hugo Cc: benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com, jikos@kernel.org, hdegoede@redhat.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, agross@kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, xnox@ubuntu.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.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, Jun 12, 2019 at 02:27:21PM -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, > which is now in a header file that hid-quirks can access, 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. > > Suggested-by: Benjamin Tissoires > Signed-off-by: Jeffrey Hugo > --- > drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > index e5ca6fe2ca57..bd81bb090222 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-quirks.c > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > #include > #include > #include > +#include > > #include "hid-ids.h" > > @@ -914,6 +915,8 @@ static const struct hid_device_id hid_mouse_ignore_list[] = { > > bool hid_ignore(struct hid_device *hdev) > { > + int i; > + > if (hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE) > return false; > if (hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_IGNORE) > @@ -978,18 +981,20 @@ bool hid_ignore(struct hid_device *hdev) > break; > case USB_VENDOR_ID_ELAN: > /* > - * Many Elan devices have a product id of 0x0401 and are handled > - * by the elan_i2c input driver. But the ACPI HID ELAN0800 dev > - * is not (and cannot be) handled by that driver -> > - * Ignore all 0x0401 devs except for the ELAN0800 dev. > + * Blacklist of everything that gets handled by the elan_i2c > + * input driver. This avoids disabling valid touchpads and > + * other ELAN devices. > */ > - if (hdev->product == 0x0401 && > - strncmp(hdev->name, "ELAN0800", 8) != 0) > - return true; > - /* Same with product id 0x0400 */ > - if (hdev->product == 0x0400 && > - strncmp(hdev->name, "QTEC0001", 8) != 0) > - return true; > + if ((hdev->product == 0x0401 || hdev->product == 0x0400)) { > + for (i = 0; strlen(elan_acpi_id[i].id); ++i) > + if (!strncmp(hdev->name, elan_acpi_id[i].id, > + strlen(elan_acpi_id[i].id))) > + return true; > + for (i = 0; strlen(elan_of_match[i].name); ++i) > + if (!strncmp(hdev->name, elan_of_match[i].name, > + strlen(elan_of_match[i].name))) > + return true; Do we really need to blacklist the OF case here? I thought that in ACPI case we have clashes as HID gets matched by elan_i2c and CID is matched by i2c-hid, but I do not believe we'll run into the same situation on OF systems. Thanks. -- Dmitry