On Sat, 7 Nov 2015 10:12:09 -0500
Frank Praznik <frank.praznik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Refactor output report sending functions to allow for the sending of
> output reports without enqueing a work item. Output reports for any device
^
enqueuing or enqueueing :)
> can now be sent by calling the sony_send_output_report function which will
> automatically dispatch the request to the appropriate output function. The
> individual state worker functions have been replaced with a universal
> sony_state_worker function which calls sony_send_output_report.
>
> Signed-off-by: Frank Praznik <frank.praznik@xxxxxxxxx>
Looks good to me, just one comment below.
> ---
> drivers/hid/hid-sony.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c b/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
> index 661f94f..b84b2ce 100644
> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-sony.c
> @@ -1782,7 +1782,7 @@ error_leds:
> return ret;
> }
>
> -static void sixaxis_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> +static void sixaxis_send_output_report(struct sony_sc *sc)
> {
> static const union sixaxis_output_report_01 default_report = {
> .buf = {
> @@ -1796,7 +1796,6 @@ static void sixaxis_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00
> }
> };
> - struct sony_sc *sc = container_of(work, struct sony_sc, state_worker);
> struct sixaxis_output_report *report =
> (struct sixaxis_output_report *)sc->output_report_dmabuf;
> int n;
> @@ -1839,9 +1838,8 @@ static void sixaxis_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
> }
>
> -static void dualshock4_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> +static void dualshock4_send_output_report(struct sony_sc *sc)
> {
> - struct sony_sc *sc = container_of(work, struct sony_sc, state_worker);
> struct hid_device *hdev = sc->hdev;
> __u8 *buf = sc->output_report_dmabuf;
> int offset;
> @@ -1886,9 +1884,8 @@ static void dualshock4_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> HID_OUTPUT_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
> }
>
> -static void motion_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> +static void motion_send_output_report(struct sony_sc *sc)
> {
> - struct sony_sc *sc = container_of(work, struct sony_sc, state_worker);
> struct hid_device *hdev = sc->hdev;
> struct motion_output_report_02 *report =
> (struct motion_output_report_02 *)sc->output_report_dmabuf;
> @@ -1907,6 +1904,23 @@ static void motion_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> hid_hw_output_report(hdev, (__u8 *)report, MOTION_REPORT_0x02_SIZE);
> }
>
> +static void sony_send_output_report(struct sony_sc *sc)
> +{
> + if (sc->quirks & DUALSHOCK4_CONTROLLER)
> + dualshock4_send_output_report(sc);
> + else if ((sc->quirks & SIXAXIS_CONTROLLER) ||
> + (sc->quirks & NAVIGATION_CONTROLLER))
> + sixaxis_send_output_report(sc);
> + else if (sc->quirks & MOTION_CONTROLLER)
> + motion_send_output_report(sc);
> +}
We could have have a function pointer to a send_output_report callback
in struct sony_sc, set the appropriate call back in sony_probe() once
and for all and drop sony_send_output_report() which is identifying
again the device, something we already did in sony_probe().
Just an idea for a more declarative approach, but this way is OK too.
> +
> +static void sony_state_worker(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct sony_sc *sc = container_of(work, struct sony_sc, state_worker);
> + sony_send_output_report(sc);
this would become:
sc->send_output_report(sc);
same as in patch 2/2.
> +}
> +
> static int sony_allocate_output_report(struct sony_sc *sc)
> {
> if ((sc->quirks & SIXAXIS_CONTROLLER) ||
> @@ -2234,11 +2248,10 @@ static void sony_release_device_id(struct sony_sc *sc)
> }
> }
>
> -static inline void sony_init_work(struct sony_sc *sc,
> - void (*worker)(struct work_struct *))
> +static inline void sony_init_work(struct sony_sc *sc)
> {
> if (!sc->worker_initialized)
> - INIT_WORK(&sc->state_worker, worker);
> + INIT_WORK(&sc->state_worker, sony_state_worker);
>
> sc->worker_initialized = 1;
> }
> @@ -2312,7 +2325,7 @@ static int sony_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_OUTPUT_REPORTS_ON_INTR_EP;
> hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_SKIP_OUTPUT_REPORT_ID;
> ret = sixaxis_set_operational_usb(hdev);
> - sony_init_work(sc, sixaxis_state_worker);
> + sony_init_work(sc);
> } else if ((sc->quirks & SIXAXIS_CONTROLLER_BT) ||
> (sc->quirks & NAVIGATION_CONTROLLER_BT)) {
> /*
> @@ -2321,7 +2334,7 @@ static int sony_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> */
> hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_OUTPUT_REPORTS_ON_INTR_EP;
> ret = sixaxis_set_operational_bt(hdev);
> - sony_init_work(sc, sixaxis_state_worker);
> + sony_init_work(sc);
> } else if (sc->quirks & DUALSHOCK4_CONTROLLER) {
> if (sc->quirks & DUALSHOCK4_CONTROLLER_BT) {
> /*
> @@ -2336,9 +2349,9 @@ static int sony_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> }
> }
>
> - sony_init_work(sc, dualshock4_state_worker);
> + sony_init_work(sc);
> } else if (sc->quirks & MOTION_CONTROLLER) {
> - sony_init_work(sc, motion_state_worker);
> + sony_init_work(sc);
> } else {
> ret = 0;
> }
> --
Thanks,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
http://ao2.it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
--
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
