2020. december 28., hétfő 0:04 keltezéssel, Roderick Colenbrander írta:
> [...]
> > > + struct dualsense_input_report *ds_report;
> > > + uint8_t value;
> > > +
> > > + /* DualSense in USB uses the full HID report for reportID 1, but
> > > + * Bluetooth uses a minimal HID report for reportID 1 and reports
> > > + * the full report using reportID 49.
> > > + */
> > > + if (report->id == DS_INPUT_REPORT_USB && hdev->bus == BUS_USB) {
> > > + ds_report = (struct dualsense_input_report *)&data[1];
> > > + } else {
> > > + hid_err(hdev, "Unhandled reportID=%d\n", report->id);
> > > + return -1;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_X, ds_report->x);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_Y, ds_report->y);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_RX, ds_report->rx);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_RY, ds_report->ry);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_Z, ds_report->z);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_RZ, ds_report->rz);
> > > +
> > > + value = ds_report->buttons[0] & DS_BUTTONS0_HAT_SWITCH;
> > > + if (value > 7)
> > > + value = 8; /* center */
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_HAT0X, ps_gamepad_hat_mapping[value].x);
> > > + input_report_abs(ds->gamepad, ABS_HAT0Y, ps_gamepad_hat_mapping[value].y);
> > > +
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_WEST, ds_report->buttons[0] & DS_BUTTONS0_SQUARE);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_SOUTH, ds_report->buttons[0] & DS_BUTTONS0_CROSS);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_EAST, ds_report->buttons[0] & DS_BUTTONS0_CIRCLE);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_NORTH, ds_report->buttons[0] & DS_BUTTONS0_TRIANGLE);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_TL, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_L1);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_TR, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_R1);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_TL2, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_L2);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_TR2, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_R2);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_SELECT, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_CREATE);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_START, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_OPTIONS);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_THUMBL, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_L3);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_THUMBR, ds_report->buttons[1] & DS_BUTTONS1_R3);
> > > + input_report_key(ds->gamepad, BTN_MODE, ds_report->buttons[2] & DS_BUTTONS2_PS_HOME);
> >
> > Possibly this could be replaced with a loop? I have something like this in mind:
> >
> > ```
> > struct ps_gamepad_button {
> > unsigned int code;
> > uint8_t button_idx;
> > uint8_t mask;
> > } ps_gamepad_buttons[] = {...};
> >
> > for (...) {
> > struct ps_gamepad_button *b = ...;
> > input_report_key(...);
> > }
> > ```
> >
> > Or is there any reason why the unrolled version is preffered that I'm missing?
>
> It can be done from a loop. Main reason for unrolled was that it is
> actually less code and potentially a tiny bit faster, but I bet a
> compiler would have unrolled it anyway. I don't know what I want to do
> here. Being explicit feels nice (other drivers do something similar).
> [...]
I agree that the compiler would've probably unrolled it. I'd personally consider
the loop version to be shorter as I'd not consider the static array "code" -
it's really just data initialization. Anyways, may I suggest then to align the
parameters so that the given parameter of each call starts in the same column?
I think it helps readability a good deal.
