Hi! > > > > 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). While I believe one set of devices is good goal, I don't think IIO is good solution here. It is being used for user input after all... Routing on/off values to IIO is strange. Best regards, Pavel -- http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
