On Thu, Jan 07, 2021 at 06:57:10AM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 6:22 PM Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Doug, Stephen, > > > > On Wed, Jan 06, 2021 at 05:16:10PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 4, 2020 at 4:48 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Some cros ECs support a front proximity MKBP event via > > > > 'EC_MKBP_FRONT_PROXIMITY'. Map this to the 'SW_FRONT_PROXIMITY' input > > > > event code so it can be reported up to userspace. > > > > > > > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Benson Leung <bleung@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Cc: Guenter Roeck <groeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 5 +++++ > > > > include/linux/platform_data/cros_ec_commands.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > > > This seems really straightforward. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Given that it touches a header file owned by the Chrome OS maintainers > > > and a driver owned by input, how should it land? One maintainer Acks > > > and the other lands? > > > > Sorry about missing this one, however the "front proximity" switch has > > been introduced for the benefit of phone devices, to be emitted when a > > device is raised to user's ear, and I do not think we should be using > > this here. > > > > We have just recently had similar discussion with regard to palm- and > > lap-mode sensors and whether they should be reported over input or IIO > > as true proximity sensors: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-iio/9f9b0ff6-3bf1-63c4-eb36-901cecd7c4d9@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Based on what we are doing for other Chrome OS devices that expose > > proximity sensors (for example trogdor) we have decided that we all > > should be using IIO as it will allow not only on/off, but true proximity > > reporting with potential of implementing smarter policies by userspace. > > > > Because of that we should do the same here and export this as IIO > > proximity sensor as well. > > For devices with a true proximity sensor that's exactly what we're > doing. I've only been involved in the periphery of the discussion, > but as I understand it there are some models of laptop for which we > don't have a true proximity sensor. On these devices, the EC is in > charge of deciding about proximity based on a number of factors. Yes, I understand that on some devices the proximity sensors are not true sensors but rather on/off signals, potentially derived from a multitude of sources. However there is still a benefit in exposing them as IIO proximity devices with limited reporting representing [near, infinity] range/values. This will mean that userspace needs to monitor only one set of devices (IIO) instead of both IIO and input, and will not require constantly expanding EV_SW set to account for ever-growing number of proximity sensors (lap, palm, general presence, etc). Thanks. -- Dmitry
