[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Call new led hw_changed API on kbd brightness change

On 05-06-18 12:14, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 12:05 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On 05-06-18 11:58, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2018-06-05 at 09:37 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> On 05-06-18 05:18, Chris Chiu wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.
>>>>> org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:23:04PM +0200, Hans de Goede
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> On 04-06-18 15:51, Daniel Drake wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@r
>>>>>>>> edha
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is this really a case of the hardware itself processing
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> keypress and then changing the brightness *itself* ?
>>>>>>>>> From the "[PATCH 2/2] platform/x86: asus-wmi: Add
>>>>>>>>> keyboard backlight
>>>>>>>>> toggle support" patch I get the impression that the
>>>>>>>>> driver
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> modifying the brightness from within the kernel rather
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> keyboard controller are ACPI embeddec-controller doing
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>> If that is the case then the right fix is for the
>>>>>>>>> driver to
>>>>>>>>> stop
>>>>>>>>> mucking with the brighness itself, it should simply
>>>>>>>>> report
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> right keyboard events and export a led interface and
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> userspace
>>>>>>>>> will do the right thing (and be able to offer flexible
>>>>>>>>> policies
>>>>>>>>> to the user).
>>>>>>>> Before this modification, the driver reports the
>>>>>>>> brightness
>>>>>>>> keypresses
>>>>>>>> to userspace and then userspace can respond by changing
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> brightness
>>>>>>>> level, as you describe.
>>>>>>>> You are right in that the hardware doesn't change the
>>>>>>>> brightness
>>>>>>>> directly itself, which is the normal usage of
>>>>>>>> However this approach was suggested by Benjamin Berg and
>>>>>>>> Bastien
>>>>>>>> Nocera in the thread: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86: asus-
>>>>>>>> wmi:
>>>>>>>> Add
>>>>>>>> keyboard backlight toggle support
>>>>>>>> The issue is that we need to support a new "keyboard
>>>>>>>> backlight
>>>>>>>> brightness cycle" key (in the patch that follows this
>>>>>>>> one)
>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> doesn't fit into any definitions of keys recognised by
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> kernel and
>>>>>>>> likewise there's no userspace code to handle it.
>>>>>>>> If preferred we could leave the standard brightness keys
>>>>>>>> behaving as
>>>>>>>> they are (input events) and make the new special key type
>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>> handled by the kernel?
>>>>>>> I'm sorry that Benjamin and Bastien steered you in this
>>>>>>> direction,
>>>>>>> IMHO none of it should be handled in the kernel.
>>>>>>> Anytime any sort of input is directly responded to by the
>>>>>>> kernel
>>>>>>> it is a huge PITA to deal with from userspace. The kernel
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> a simplistic implementation which almost always is wrong.
>>>>>>> Benjamin, remember the pain we went through with rfkill
>>>>>>> hotkey
>>>>>>> presses being handled in the kernel ?
>>>>>>> And then there is the whole
>>>>>>> acpi_video.brightness_switch_enabled
>>>>>>> debacle, which is an option which defaults to true which
>>>>>>> causes
>>>>>>> the kernel to handle LCD brightness key presses, which all
>>>>>>> distros
>>>>>>> have been patching to default to off for ages.
>>>>>>> To give a concrete example, we may want to implement
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>> dimming / auto-off of the kbd backlight when the no keys
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> touched for x seconds. This would seriously get in the way
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>> So sorry, but NACK to this series.
>>>>>> So if instead of modifying the LED value, the kernel platform
>>>>>> drivers
>>>>>> converted the TOGGLE into a cycle even by converting to an UP
>>>>>> event
>>>>>> based on awareness of the plaform specific max value and the
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> current value, leaving userspace to act on the TOGGLE/UP
>>>>>> events -
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> that be preferable?
>>>>>> Something like:
>>>>>> if (code == TOGGLE && ledval < ledmax)
>>>>>> code = UP;
>>>>>> sparse_keymap_report_event(..., code, ...)
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Darren Hart
>>>>>> VMware Open Source Technology Center
>>>>> That's what I was trying to do in [PATCH v2] platform/x86:
>>>>> asus-
>>>>> wmi: Add
>>>>> keyboard backlight toggle support. However, that brought
>>>>> another
>>>>> problem
>>>>> discussed in the thread.
>>>>> So I moved the brightness change in the driver without passing
>>>>> to
>>>>> userspace.
>>>>> Per Hans, seems there're some other concerns and I also wonder
>>>>> if
>>>>> the
>>>>> TOGGLE event happens in ASUS HID (asus-hid.c) which also
>>>>> convert
>>>>> and
>>>>> pass the keycode to userspace but no TOGGLE key support yet
>>>>> What
>>>>> should
>>>>> we do then?
>>>> As I mentioned in my reply to Darren, there are 2 proper
>>>> solutions to
>>>> this:
>>>> 1) Make userspace treat KEY_KBDILLUMTOGGLE as a cycle key, this
>>>> is
>>>> what the kbd-backlight on most laptops with a single hotkey (*)
>>>> does
>>>> in cases where this is handled in firmware, rather then left to
>>>> the
>>>> OS. The handled in firmware is the case which I created the
>>>> led_classdev_notify_brightness_hw_changed() API for. This would
>>>> be
>>>> my preferred solution and I believe that Benjamin is discussing
>>>> this
>>>> with Bastien ATM.
>>> It isn't on Macs, at least. Toggle is a toggle, not a cycle key. It
>>> turns the keyboard backlight off and on, restoring the backlight
>>> level
>>> when turned back on.
>>>> 2) Add a new KEY_KBDILLUMCYCLE event
>>> Which won't be accessible to Xorg.
>> Ok, so what are you suggestion, do you really want to hardcode
>> the cycle behavior in the kernel as these 2 patches are doing,
>> without any option to intervene from userspace?
>> As mentioned before in the thread there are several example
>> of the kernel deciding to handle key-presses itself, putting
>> policy in the kernel and they have all ended poorly (think
>> e.g. rfkill, acpi-video dealing with LC brightnesskey presses
>> itself).
>> I guess one thing we could do here is code out both solutions,
>> have a module option which controls if we:
>> 1) Handle this in the kernel as these patches do
>> 2) Or send a new KEY_KBDILLUMCYCLE event
>> Combined with a Kconfig option to select which is the default
>> behavior. Then Endless can select 1 for now and then in
>> Fedora (which defaults to Wayland now) we could default to
>> 2. once all the code for handling 2 is in place.
>> This is ugly (on the kernel side) but it might be the best
>> compromise we can do.
> I don't really mind which option is used, I'm listing the problems with
> the different options. If you don't care about Xorg, then definitely go
> for adding a new key. Otherwise, processing it in the kernel is the
> least ugly, especially given that the key goes through the same driver
> that controls the brightness anyway. There's no crazy cross driver
> interaction as there was in the other cases you listed.

Unfortunately not caring about Xorg is not really an option.

Ok, new idea, how about we make g-s-d behavior upon detecting a
KEY_KBDILLUMTOGGLE event configurable, if we're on a Mac do a
toggle, otherwise do a cycle.

Or we could do this through hwdb, then we could add a hwdb entry
for this laptop setting the udev property to do a cycle instead of
a toggle on receiving the keypress.

I guess alternatively I could live with hardcoding this in the
kernel as these 2 patches do, but that solves it just for *this*
laptop, I've a feeling that if we do that we end up with similar
code in all laptop vendor drivers under drivers/platform/x86
soon. Which really is the acpi_video.brightness_event thing
again, where the kernel would handle brightness key-presses
but only if the acpi_video backlight interface was in use
and not on models with a vendor specific or native-hardware
backlight driver. Hmm, so writing this, I'm still quite sure
the kernel approach is actually a bad idea.



 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-05 12:31    [W:0.059 / U:6.732 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site