Hi Jean (I cc Marcel Holtmann because BT is involved too) Le 6 oct. 2012 à 22:04, Jean Delvare a écrit : > Hi Benjamin, > > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:41:43 +0200, benjamin.tissoires wrote: >> From: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxx> >> >> Microsoft published the protocol specification of HID over i2c: >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh852380.aspx >> >> This patch introduces an implementation of this protocol. >> >> This implementation does not includes the ACPI part of the specification. >> This will come when ACPI 5.0 devices will be available. >> >> Once the ACPI part will be done, OEM will not have to declare HID over I2C >> devices in their platform specific driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> Hi, >> >> this is finally my first implementation of HID over I2C. >> >> This has been tested on an Elan Microelectronics HID over I2C device, with >> a Samsung Exynos 4412 board. >> >> Any comments are welcome. >> >> Cheers, >> Benjamin >> >> drivers/i2c/Kconfig | 8 + >> drivers/i2c/Makefile | 1 + >> drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.c | 1027 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/i2c/i2c-hid.h | 35 ++ >> 4 files changed, 1071 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.c >> create mode 100644 include/linux/i2c/i2c-hid.h > > Looks like the wrong place for this driver. HID-over-USB support lives > under drivers/hid, so your driver should go there as well. Not only > this will be more consistent, but it also makes more sense: your driver > is a user, not an implementer, of the I2C layer, so it doesn't belong > to drivers/i2c. This is a question I asked a few months back, but apparently not all points of views had been expressed at the time. Currently, HID-over-USB lives in drivers/hid, but HID-over-BT lives in drivers/bluetooth. When I asked, Jiri explained that he maintained HID-over-USB and Marcel maintained HID-over-BT, which explained the choices made. Let's try to summarize what we know now: The question is what drives the choice of where to put HID-over-XXX, among the following 1- who the maintainer is. Here, Benjamin will probably maintain this so it does not help. 2- dependencies. HID-over-XXX depends on HID as much as it depends on XXX, so it does not help. 3- data flow. Indeed, HID is a client of HID-over-XXX which is a client of XXX. Are there other parts of the kernel where this drives the choice of where YYY-over-XXX lives? Jiri, Marcel, Greg, others, any opinions? > > Also, you need to sort out dependencies. Your causes a link failure here: > > ERROR: "hiddev_report_event" [drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.ko] undefined! > ERROR: "hiddev_disconnect" [drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.ko] undefined! > ERROR: "hiddev_connect" [drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.ko] undefined! > ERROR: "hid_pidff_init" [drivers/i2c/i2c-hid.ko] undefined! > make[1]: *** [__modpost] Erreur 1 > make: *** [modules] Erreur 2 > > This is because these functions aren't exported and I tried to build > i2c-hid as a module.BTW I see that these functions are part of the > usbhid driver, which looks seriously wrong. If these functions are > transport layer-independent, they should be moved to the hid-code or > some sub-module. One should be able to enable HID-over-I2C without > HID-over-USB. > > -- > Jean Delvare Cheers, St. PS: Benjamin is leaving ENAC. He'll probably keep maintaining HID-over-I2C, and we'll probably share the maintenance of hid-multitouch as well as other input-related projects we have not published yet. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
