Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] HID: i2c-hid: Rely on HID descriptor fetch to probe

Kenny Levinsen
2024-04-27T13:20:11Z

On 4/27/24 5:21 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> I really think we should differentiate the cases "we do not know if
> there is a device" vs "we do known that there is a device and we have
> strong expectation of what that device is, and we do not expect
> communication to fail".

My reasoning was that there is no difference between looking for address
acknowledge on a probe read vs. a real command. Unfortunately, I ran
into some issues with error code consistency that Doug highlighted...

Considering that the smbus probe bails on *any* error, it's really only
ACK'd address + NACK'd register that remains, and I thought it maybe
wouldn't be too harmful to just always have a debug log as suggested.
However, I would still like *more* good errors by being specific about
the error condition, and I plan to send some patches to get the number
of drivers sending ENXIO up so we can comfortably rely on it in a future
i2c-hid patch.

If you don't think it's acceptable to leave this as a pure debug print
for now, I'll send a patch with just a minor clean-up and Łukasz' delays
- then I'll try this again later when the driver situation has improved.
I've been rapid-firing revisions, so I'll await an ACK this time... :)

---

For some context, I started looking at the i2c-hid driver after a recent
regression around assumed Windows behavior, and found that the actual
behavior differed a lot from our assumptions. Windows gets the job done
notably quicker, with fewer messages and with shorter albeit differently
placed delays.

My plan is to send patches that clean up and aligns our traffic more,
speeding things up and hopefully deprecating some quirks. To that end, I
would also like to get rid of the dummy read once we're comfortable with it.