lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] input: Add wiichuck driver
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:31:24PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 09:44:27AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Grant,
> >
> > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 06:29:44AM +0200, Grant Likely wrote:
> > > This patch adds a driver for the Nintendo Nunchuck (wiimote accessory)
> > > attached to an i2c bus via something like a wiichuck adapter board
> > > from Sparkfun.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This is RFC because the driver doesn't completely work yet. The
> > > joystick and buttons work fine. There is a bug with the accelerometer
> > > reporting though (nothing gets reported), and I'm not even sure I'm
> > > using the right input type for reporting accelerometer values.
> >
> > Looks quite reasonable and I think that ABS_Rx is reasonable events for
> > accelerometer in this particular case.
> >
> > A few more comments below.
>
> Hi Dmitry, thanks for the review. Replies below.
>
> >
> > > Comments welcome.
> > >
> > > drivers/input/joystick/Kconfig | 8 +
> > > drivers/input/joystick/Makefile | 1
> > > drivers/input/joystick/wiichuck.c | 225 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 234 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/input/joystick/wiichuck.c
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/input/joystick/Kconfig b/drivers/input/joystick/Kconfig
> > > index 56eb471..79f18db 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/input/joystick/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/input/joystick/Kconfig
> > > @@ -193,6 +193,14 @@ config JOYSTICK_TWIDJOY
> > > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the
> > > module will be called twidjoy.
> > >
> > > +config JOYSTICK_WIICHUCK
> > > + tristate "Nintendo Nunchuck on i2c bus"
> > > + depends on I2C
> > > + select INPUT_POLLDEV
> > > + help
> > > + Say Y here if you have a Nintendo Nunchuck directly attached to
> > > + the machine's i2c bus.
> > > +
> >
> > To compile this driver as a module, ...
>
> That ends up being pretty useless boilerplate. I've stopped adding
> that line to any of the Kconfig text I maintain.
>

This tells the user name of the module, that is the reason I have all
input drivers use this boilerplate.

> > > +static void wiichuck_poll(struct input_polled_dev *poll_dev)
> > > +{
> > > + struct wiichuck_device *wiichuck = poll_dev->private;
> > > + struct i2c_client *i2c = wiichuck->i2c_client;
> > > + static uint8_t cmd_byte = 0;
> > > + struct i2c_msg cmd_msg =
> > > + { .addr = i2c->addr, .len = 1, .buf = &cmd_byte };
> > > + uint8_t b[6];
> >
> > As mentioned by others these buffers should not be on stack.
>
> Fixed.
>
> >
> > > + struct i2c_msg data_msg =
> > > + { .addr = i2c->addr, .flags = I2C_M_RD, .len = 6, .buf = b };
> > > + int jx, jy, ax, ay, az;
> > > + bool c, z;
> > > +
> > > + switch (wiichuck->state) {
> > > + case 0:
> > > + i2c_transfer(i2c->adapter, &cmd_msg, 1);
> > > + wiichuck->state = 1;
> >
> > Do you really need to have a state machine here? Why not do both
> > transfers in one poll invocation?
>
> Mostly because there needs to a gap between setting up the data
> capture and reading the data back.

How long is the gap? You should be able simply sleep in the poll().

> I could flip things around to
> setup the next transfer after reading the previous, but in my current
> version I also add state for handling hotplug of the wiimote
> accessories, so I think the state machine is still warranted.
>
> > > + set_bit(EV_KEY, input_dev->evbit);
> > > + set_bit(BTN_C, input_dev->keybit); /* buttons */
> > > + set_bit(BTN_Z, input_dev->keybit);
> >
> > I prefer __set_bit() here since there is no concurrency.
>
> In general, I avoid using __* versions of functions unless it is
> actually important that I do so. I'm not concerned about slightly
> higher overhead here, and I'd rather my code set a good example.

In case of xxx_bit() __xxx_bit() is not an "internal, call only if you
are really sure" version but regular, non-atomic one. Unfortunately the
naming chosen used double underscores for them.

I prefer drivers using set_bit() and clear_bit() only if atomicity is
important, in all other cases underscored versions are more appropriate.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-16 21:47    [W:0.059 / U:34.336 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site