On 07/22/2010 11:21 AM, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
what is usb-hid.ko doing here? I would expect a bunch of code
duplication with minor difference between USB and Bluetooth.
usbhid doesn't have a lot of code for hidraw. Two functions are involved:
usbhid_output_raw_report()
- calls usb_control_msg() with Get_Report
usbhid_get_raw_report()
- calls usb_control_msg() with Set_Report
OR
- calls usb_interrupt_msg() on the Ouput pipe.
This is of course easier than bluetooth because usb_control_msg() is
synchronous, even when requesting reports, mostly because of the nature
of USB, where the request and response are part of the same transfer.
For Bluetooth, it's a bit more complicated since the kernel treats it
more like a networking interface (and indeed it is). My understanding is
that to make a synchronous transfer in bluetooth, one must:
- send the request packet
- block (wait_event_*())
- when the response is received in the input handler, wake_up_*().
There's not really any code duplication, mostly because initiating
synchronous USB transfers (input and output) is easy (because of the
usb_*_msg() functions), while making synchronous Bluetooth transfers
must be done manually. If there's a nice, convenient, synchronous
function in Bluetooth similar to usb_control_msg() that I've missed,
then let me know, as it would simplify this whole thing.
there is not and I don't think we ever get one. My question here was
more in the direction why HID core is doing these synchronously in the
first place. Especially since USB can do everything async as well.
I'm open to suggestions. The way I see it is from a user space
perspective. With Get_Feature being on an ioctl(), I don't see any clean
way to do it other than synchronously. Other operating systems (I can
say for sure Windows, Mac OS X, and FreeBSD) handle Get/Set Feature the
same way (synchronously) from user space.
You seem to be proposing an asynchronous interface. What would that look
like from user space?
not necessarily from user space, but at least from HID core to HIDP and
usb-hid transports. At least that is what I would expect, Jiri?
Sorry for this taking too long (vacations, conferences, you name it) for
me to respond.
As all the _raw() callbacks are purely intended for userspace interaction
anyway, it's perfectly fine (and in fact desirable) for the low-level
transport drivers to perform these operations synchronously (and that's
what USB implementation does as well).
Marcel, if your opposition to synchronous interface is strong, we'll have
to think about other aproaches, but from my POV, the patch is fine as-is
for Bluetooth.
that the ioctl() API is synchronous is fine to me, however pushing that
down to the transport drivers seems wrong to me. I think the HID core
should be able to handle a fully asynchronous transport driver. I know
that with the USB subsystem you are little bit spoiled here, but for
Bluetooth it is not the case. And in the end even using the asynchronous
USB URB calls would be nice as well.
How are the URB calls better than using the synchronous calls? (see below)
So why not make the core actually wait for responses from the transport
driver.
Because this makes the USB side a lot more complicated, and it would
introduce transport specific code into the core. Further, it would
involve the transport driver calling hidraw with _every_ single packet
it receives. Further, it would have to call hidraw with HANDSHAKE
protocol error packets as well.
I would make the transport drivers a lot simpler in the long
run.
It would make the USB transport driver and drivers/hid/hidraw much more
complicated right now, at the expense of making the BT transport driver
marginally simpler (and I'm not even convinced whether it would really
be simpler). (see below for more)
And I know that most likely besides Bluetooth and USB you won't see
another, but you never know.
I just don't understand the objection. In each transport type, the
waiting will have to be done in a different way. USB and BT are
different enough that this is the case already, without having to
imagine future buses which use HID. In BT, you have to check each packet
which comes back from the BT network to see whether it is the response
packet that hidraw is waiting for. Further, you have to check for
HANDSHAKE packets indicating protocol error. Where better for this to be
done than in hidp? Further, how can this possibly happen in
drivers/hid/hidraw, as it doesn't know about the details of bluetooth to
make this determination, and why should it? In my last email (
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/9/231 ) to which I got no response, I laid
out how doing the blocking in drivers/hid/hidraw would only make all the
parts except bluetooth more complicated (including the core, and the USB
side), and would also introduce bluetooth-specific things into the core.
Further, you're saying that using the asynchronous USB URB calls would
be a benefit. How is it a benefit to replace a single function call
which does exactly what I want, with a set of asynchronous calls and
then adding my own blocking to make it do the same thing? This sounds to
me like it would be 1: more text, 2: duplication of code, 3: error
prone. I can't understand how this is of benefit. Please explain to me
what I'm missing.
In theory, what you're saying makes sense. Making common code and logic
actually common is always good. In practice though, in this case, I
submit that there really isn't any commonality, and the only way for
there to be commonality is to do the USB side the hard way. Further,
drivers/hid/hidraw can't wait for a bluetooth packet without having code
that's bluetooth-specific. It seems just that simple to me.
I'll give it some more thought, and take another look at the code to see
if there's something obvious that I'm missing. If you know what I'm
missing in my understanding of the problem, please tell me :)
Alan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
