On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Dec 06 2016 or thereabouts, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Benjamin Tissoires >> > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Dec 05 2016 or thereabouts, Rob Herring wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:24:50AM -0800, Brian Norris wrote: >> >>> > Hi Benjamin and Rob, >> >>> > >> >>> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:34:34PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> >>> > > On Nov 30 2016 or thereabouts, Brian Norris wrote: >> >>> > > > From: Caesar Wang <wxt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Add a compatible string and regulator property for Wacom W9103 >> >>> > > > digitizer. Its VDD supply may need to be enabled before using it. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> > > > Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> > > > Cc: linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >>> > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> > > > --- >> >>> > > > v1 was a few months back. I finally got around to rewriting it based on >> >>> > > > DT binding feedback. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > v2: >> >>> > > > * add compatible property for wacom >> >>> > > > * name the regulator property specifically (VDD) >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/hid-over-i2c.txt | 6 +++++- >> >>> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/hid-over-i2c.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/hid-over-i2c.txt >> >>> > > > index 488edcb264c4..eb98054e60c9 100644 >> >>> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/hid-over-i2c.txt >> >>> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/hid-over-i2c.txt >> >>> > > > @@ -11,12 +11,16 @@ If this binding is used, the kernel module i2c-hid will handle the communication >> >>> > > > with the device and the generic hid core layer will handle the protocol. >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > Required properties: >> >>> > > > -- compatible: must be "hid-over-i2c" >> >>> > > > +- compatible: must be "hid-over-i2c", or a device-specific string like: >> >>> > > > + * "wacom,w9013" >> >>> > > >> >>> > > NACK on this one. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > After re-reading the v1 submission I realized Rob asked for this change, >> >>> > > but I strongly disagree. >> >>> > > >> >>> > > HID over I2C is a generic protocol, in the same way HID over USB is. We >> >>> > > can not start adding device specifics here, this is opening the can of >> >>> > > worms. If the device is a HID one, nothing else should matter. The rest >> >>> > > (description of the device, name, etc...) is all provided by the >> >>> > > protocol. >> >>> > >> >>> > I should have spoken up when Rob made the suggestion, because I more or >> >>> > less agree with Benjamin here. I don't really see why this needs to have >> >>> > a specialized compatible string, as the property is still fairly >> >>> > generic, and the entire device handling is via a generic protocol. The >> >>> > fact that we manage its power via a regulator is not very >> >>> > device-specific. >> >>> >> >>> It doesn't matter that the protocol is generic. The device attached and >> >>> the implementation is not. Implementations have been known to have >> >>> bugs/quirks (generally speaking, not HID over I2C in particular). There >> >>> are also things outside the scope of what is 'hid-over-i2c' like what's >> >>> needed to power-on the device which this patch clearly show. >> >> >> >> Yes, there are bugs, quirks, even with HID. But the HID declares within >> >> the protocol the Vendor ID and the Product ID, which means once we pass >> >> the initial "device is ready" step and can do a single i2c write/read, >> >> we don't give a crap about device tree anymore. >> >> >> >> This is just about setting the device in shape so that it can answer a >> >> single write/read. >> >> >> >>> >> >>> This is no different than a panel attached via LVDS, eDP, etc., or >> >>> USB/PCIe device hard-wired on a board. They all use standard protocols >> >>> and all need additional data to describe them. Of course, adding a >> >>> single property for a delay would not be a big deal, but it's never >> >>> ending. Next you need multiple supplies, GPIO controls, mutiple >> >>> delays... This has been discussed to death already. As Thierry Reding >> >>> said, you're not special[1]. >> >> >> >> I can somewhat understand what you mean. The official specification is >> >> for ACPI. And ACPI allows to calls various settings while querying the >> >> _STA method for instance. So in the ACPI world, we don't need to care >> >> about regulators or GPIOs because the OEM deals with this in its own >> >> blob. >> >> >> >> Now, coming back to our issue. We are not special, maybe, if he says so. >> >> But this really feels like a design choice between putting the burden on >> >> device tree and OEMs or in the module maintainers. And I'd rather have >> >> the OEM deal with their device than me having to update the module for >> >> each generations of hardware. Indeed, this looks like an "endless" >> >> amount of quirks, but I'd rather have this endless amount of quirks than >> >> having to maintain an endless amount of list of new devices that behaves >> >> the same way. We are talking here about "wacom,w9013", but then comes >> >> "wacom,w9014" and we need to upgrade the kernel. >> > >> > No. If the w9014 can claim compatibility with then w9013, then you >> > don't need a kernel change. The DT should list the w9014 AND w9013, >> > but the kernel only needs to know about the w9013. That is until there >> > is some difference which is why the DT should list w9014 to start >> > with. >> > >> > If you don't have any power control to deal with, then the kernel can >> > always just match on "hid-over-i2c" compatible. >> >> Just my $0.02. Feel free to ignore. >> >> One thought is that I would say that the need to power on the device >> explicitly seems more like a board level difference and less like a >> difference associated with a particular digitizer. Said another way, >> it seems likely there will be boards with a w9013 without explicit >> control of the regulator in software and it seems like there will be >> boards with other digitizers where suddenly a new board will come out >> that needs explicit control of the regulator. >> >> In this particular case I feel like we can draw a lot of parallels to >> an SDIO bus. >> >> When you specify an SDIO bus you don't specify what kind of card will >> be present, you just say "I've got an SDIO bus" and then the specific >> device underneath is probed. Here we've say "I've got an i2c >> connection intended for HID" and then you probe for the HID device >> that's on the connection. >> >> Also for an SDIO bus, you've possibly got a regulators / GPIOs / >> resets that need to be controlled, but the specific details of these >> regulator / GPIOs / resets are specific to a given board and not >> necessarily a given SDIO device. >> > > Thanks Doug for this. I had the feeling this wasn't right, but you > actually managed to put the words on it. If it's a board problem (if > you switch the wacom device with an other HID over I2C device and you > still need the same regulator/timing parameters), then this should > simply be mentioned on the patch. > > So Brian, could you please respin the series and remve the Wacom > mentions and explain that it is required for the board itself? In advance, NAK. This is not how DT works. Either this binding needs a Wacom compatible or don't use DT. Rob -- 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
