> On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 7:48 AM Jason Gerecke <killertofu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 8:40 AM Benjamin Tissoires > > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2022 at 5:18 PM Gerecke, Jason <killertofu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > "Digitizer" is a generic usage that may be used by various devices but > > > > which is particularly used by non-display pen tablets. This patch adds the > > > > usage to the list of values matched by the IS_INPUT_APPLICATION() macro > > > > that determines if an input device should be allocated or not. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Gerecke <jason.gerecke@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Ping Cheng <ping.cheng@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > include/linux/hid.h | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/hid.h b/include/linux/hid.h > > > > index 4363a63b9775..07803e144d98 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/hid.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/hid.h > > > > @@ -883,7 +883,7 @@ static inline bool hid_is_usb(struct hid_device *hdev) > > > > /* We ignore a few input applications that are not widely used */ > > > > #define IS_INPUT_APPLICATION(a) \ > > > > (((a >= HID_UP_GENDESK) && (a <= HID_GD_MULTIAXIS)) \ > > > > - || ((a >= HID_DG_PEN) && (a <= HID_DG_WHITEBOARD)) \ > > > > > > FWIW, this has always been problematic, and I am pretty sure this is > > > breaking existing devices. > > > > > > Have you been running the hid-tools testsuite to see if there were any > > > regressions? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > I was slightly worried that this usage might have been explicitly > > excluded for some compatibility reason, but I didn't see anything in > > the commit history that said that. I also had a hard time convincing > > myself that allocating an input device for a weird device where it is > > unnecessary would cause too much trouble. > > > > I didn't see any regressions when running the hid-tools testsuite. The > > output from the 5.15.74 kernel with / without the patch applied is > > almost identical (there are numerous test failures in test_tablet.py > > even in the unpatched case; maybe I should re-run with Linus's latest > > master instead?) > > > > Jason > > > > (Apologies for this doubled message, Benjamin -- I didn't "reply all" > on my previous attempt...) > > I re-ran the tests with the Linus's latest 6.1-rc2 and have good > results with / without the patch there. The test_tablet.py failures I > previously saw no longer occur, so seem to be specific to stable. > There are still two tests that fail regardless of if the patch is > applied or not, but the patch doesn't seem to introduce any new > failures of its own. > > Jason Still waiting to hear back about this. Are positive results from the hid-tools tests sufficient, or is there additional work that should be done for this patch? Jason --- Now instead of four in the eights place / you’ve got three, ‘Cause you added one / (That is to say, eight) to the two, / But you can’t take seven from three, / So you look at the sixty-fours....
