[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Input: synaptics-rmi4 - make F03 a tristate symbol
    On Jan 11 2017 or thereabouts, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
    > On Wednesday, January 11, 2017 5:28:28 PM CET Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
    > > Yep, it was initially written that way, and IIRC there was some issues
    > > depending on how the drivers were compiled. For example, if rmi4_core is
    > > Y and some functions are m, you can't load the device initially, so you
    > > send a -EPROBE_DEFER, but how can you be sure that the function will
    > > ever be loaded?
    > I'm not sure if I understand your problem correctly, but normally
    > the way it's done is that the bus driver notifies user space that
    > a new device has appeared on the bus, and udev looks for the right
    > driver for the device, using a MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE list. Once the
    > driver gets loaded, it binds to the device.

    I agree, but we never managed to make it properly working for RMI4. See where we decided to switch to a
    static list of functions. Maybe we did not try hard enough, but we kept
    the current bus/functions_as_drivers to be able to switch back to the
    modular option,

    > > Given that we need to have all the functions loaded during probe, we
    > > decided to switch to a monolithic rmi4_core driver that has everything
    > > it needs inside.
    > If everything is in one module, you can probably get rid of at
    > least part of the bus abstraction as well and just call the functions
    > directly.

    Agree, though that means we won't be able to switch back. In the current
    form it's overly engineered.

    > Looking through the driver some more, I also find the
    > 'rmi_driver rmi_physical_driver' concept very odd, you seem to
    > have a device on the bus that is actually just another representation
    > of the parent device and that creates another set of devices for
    > the functions. Either I misunderstand what this is for, or you have

    I think you have this right.

    > a candidate for cleanup there and once you remove it (by calling
    > rmi_driver_probe() instead of rmi_register_transport_device()
    > to oversimplify the idea), the actual probing for the function
    > drivers becomes much easier to do right.

    Agree, that would simplify the code a lot. I just don't know how
    important it is for other users of RMI4 to have a modular solution or if
    the monolithic approach is a consensus now. The modular solution is
    currently disabled, but we can "always" switch back with a small effort.

    My opinion on this matter is that there is no need for the modular
    functions, but others might have a different opinion.


     \ /
      Last update: 2017-01-11 18:48    [W:0.024 / U:70.464 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site