On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:57:17PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is power management for usbtouch. Could somebody test it?
>
> Regards
> Oliver
>
> ---
>
> --- linux-2.6.26-sierra/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c.alt2 2008-06-26 15:23:38.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.26-sierra/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c 2008-06-26 15:48:44.000000000 +0200
> @@ -89,13 +89,17 @@ struct usbtouch_usb {
> int buf_len;
> struct urb *irq;
> struct usb_device *udev;
> + struct usb_interface *intf;
> struct input_dev *input;
> struct usbtouch_device_info *type;
> + struct mutex lock;
> char name[128];
> char phys[64];
>
> int x, y;
> int touch, press;
> +
> + char open:1;
> };
>
>
> @@ -820,13 +824,23 @@ exit:
> static int usbtouch_open(struct input_dev *input)
> {
> struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = input_get_drvdata(input);
> + int rv;
>
> + rv = usb_autopm_get_interface(usbtouch->intf);
> + if (rv < 0)
> + goto bail;
> + mutex_lock(&usbtouch->lock);
> usbtouch->irq->dev = usbtouch->udev;
>
> - if (usb_submit_urb(usbtouch->irq, GFP_KERNEL))
> - return -EIO;
> -
> - return 0;
> + if (usb_submit_urb(usbtouch->irq, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + rv = -EIO;
> + usb_autopm_put_interface(usbtouch->intf);
> + } else {
> + usbtouch->open = 1;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&usbtouch->lock);
> +bail:
> + return rv;
> }
>
> static void usbtouch_close(struct input_dev *input)
> @@ -834,6 +848,10 @@ static void usbtouch_close(struct input_
> struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = input_get_drvdata(input);
>
> usb_kill_urb(usbtouch->irq);
If usbtouch_resume() happens here it will resubmit the urb.
> + mutex_lock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + usbtouch->open = 0;
> + mutex_unlock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + usb_autopm_put_interface(usbtouch->intf);
> }
>
>
> @@ -889,6 +907,8 @@ static int usbtouch_probe(struct usb_int
>
> usbtouch->udev = udev;
> usbtouch->input = input_dev;
> + mutex_init(&usbtouch->lock);
> + usbtouch->intf = intf;
>
> if (udev->manufacturer)
> strlcpy(usbtouch->name, udev->manufacturer, sizeof(usbtouch->name));
> @@ -973,20 +993,76 @@ static void usbtouch_disconnect(struct u
>
> dbg("%s - usbtouch is initialized, cleaning up", __FUNCTION__);
> usb_set_intfdata(intf, NULL);
> - input_unregister_device(usbtouch->input);
> usb_kill_urb(usbtouch->irq);
> + input_unregister_device(usbtouch->input);
> usb_free_urb(usbtouch->irq);
> usbtouch_free_buffers(interface_to_usbdev(intf), usbtouch);
> kfree(usbtouch);
> }
Already discussed :)
> +static int usbtouch_suspend(struct usb_interface *intf, pm_message_t message)
> +{
> + struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
> +
> + dbg("%s - called", __FUNCTION__);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + usb_kill_urb(usbtouch->irq);
> + mutex_unlock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + return 0;
> +}
Shouldn't all the usb_kill_urb() callers check the usbtouch->open flag
first? Perhaps it's not considered an error to kill an unsubmitted urb
though.
> +static int usbtouch_resume(struct usb_interface *intf)
> +{
> + struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
> + int rv = 0;
> +
> + dbg("%s - called", __FUNCTION__);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + if (usbtouch->open)
> + rv = usb_submit_urb(usbtouch->irq, GFP_NOIO);
> + mutex_unlock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + return rv;
> +}
> +
> +static int usbtouch_pre_reset(struct usb_interface *intf)
> +{
> + struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
> +
> + dbg("%s - called", __FUNCTION__);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + usb_kill_urb(usbtouch->irq);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int usbtouch_post_reset(struct usb_interface *intf)
> +{
> + struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
> + int rv = 0;
> +
> + dbg("%s - called", __FUNCTION__);
> +
> + if (usbtouch->open)
> + rv = usb_submit_urb(usbtouch->irq, GFP_NOIO);
> + mutex_unlock(&usbtouch->lock);
> + return rv;
> +}
Hmm. Are pre_reset and post_reset actually required in such simple cases?
AFAICS device reset is already protected against pm and autopm. Or is
resubmitting urbs necessary after a reset? I'm mainly interested since
I didn't implement these callbacks in my ati_remote2 patch.
> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb, usbtouch_devices);
>
> static struct usb_driver usbtouch_driver = {
> .name = "usbtouchscreen",
> .probe = usbtouch_probe,
> .disconnect = usbtouch_disconnect,
> + .suspend = usbtouch_suspend,
> + .resume = usbtouch_resume,
> + .reset_resume = usbtouch_resume,
What is the purpose of providing identical resume and reset_resume?
AFAICS reset_resume is only called if USB_QUIRK_RESET_RESUME is
enabled.
> + .pre_reset = usbtouch_pre_reset,
> + .post_reset = usbtouch_post_reset,
> .id_table = usbtouch_devices,
> + .supports_autosuspend = 1,
> };
>
> static int __init usbtouch_init(void)
--
Ville Syrjälä
syrjala@xxxxxx
http://www.sci.fi/~syrjala/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
