Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> >>>>> In the original HID sensor specifications all Named array enums > >> >>>>> stated to be 0-based. But the most commercial devices >implemented >> >>>>> as 1-based, because of the implementation by one of the major >OS >> >>>>> vendor. To fix this we added a quirk, which required module to >be >> >>>>> recompiled. Instead now added a module parameter, so that it >can >> >>>>> be switched at runtime. By default it will be 1-based to be >> >>>>> compatible with majority of devices. This is true for both >power >> >>>>> and report state usage id for hid sensors. Also added defines >for >> >>>>> power on values for D0 to D4 and using it for clarity. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada ><srinivas.pandruvada@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>>> This looks fine but raises a few questions... >> >>>> >> >>>> What other options do we have for controlling this? Are hid >sensors >> >>>> chips identifiable? If so can we have a list of chips where it >is 0 in >> >>>> the driver. The module parameter might still be needed to deal >with new >> >>>> devices but would be nice to have most work out of the box. >> >>> We could have quirk based on vendor id/pid. But the problem is >that once they update FW to be compliant with WIN8, it >> >>> will not work. >> >>> So there is no way to distinguish. Since sensor hub is present in >most of WIN8 convertible devices, the quirk became a >> >>> new normal. >> >> Yuck. You have my sympathies! >> >> >> >>>> Got to love it when the quirk becomes the default ;) >> >>> Unfortunately they don't go back to specification update after >such change. >> >> Just to check, is this quirk only hid-sensors related? Named >arrays are >> >> as far as I can see a part of HID in general. >> > Currently I have information about HID sensors implementation only >as they are in new in the WIN8. I didn't hear any >> > complaint about any other HID devices. >> Jiri, have you seen anything similar to this before. >> >> I am just trying to work out if it should be a Hid quirk or should be >> handled only in the hid-sensors module. > >Sorry for super-late response from me, I have been drowned in other >things. > >This looks indeed pretty bad. I don't have a strong objection to having > >this as a generic HID quirk; the argument being, if this was made >de-facto >Win8-mandated standard, odds are that we'd start seeing a lot of >devices >with this behavior. > >So if you decide to take this way, please send the patch to me, I'll >apply >it. Thanks for the reply Jiri. That was pretty much what I was expecting. Srinivas, please rework this as a generic his quirk. > >Thanks, -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
