Hi,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 8:37 AM Benjamin Tissoires
<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 07 2023, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> >
> > As talked about in the patch ("drm/panel: Add a way for other devices
> > to follow panel state"), we really want to keep the power states of a
> > touchscreen and the panel it's attached to in sync with each other. In
> > that spirit, add support to i2c-hid to be a panel follower. This will
> > let the i2c-hid driver get informed when the panel is powered on and
> > off. From there we can match the i2c-hid device's power state to that
> > of the panel.
> >
> > NOTE: this patch specifically _doesn't_ use pm_runtime to keep track
> > of / manage the power state of the i2c-hid device, even though my
> > first instinct said that would be the way to go. Specific problems
> > with using pm_runtime():
> > * The initial power up couldn't happen in a runtime resume function
> > since it create sub-devices and, apparently, that's not good to do
> > in your resume function.
> > * Managing our power state with pm_runtime meant fighting to make the
> > right thing happen at system suspend to prevent the system from
> > trying to resume us only to suspend us again. While this might be
> > able to be solved, it added complexity.
> > Overall the code without pm_runtime() ended up being smaller and
> > easier to understand.
>
> Generally speaking, I'm not that happy when we need to coordinate with
> other subsystems for bringing up resources...
Yeah, I'd agree that it's not amazingly elegant. Unfortunately, I
couldn't find any existing clean frameworks that would do what was
needed, which is (presumably) why this problem hasn't been solved
before. I could try to come up with a grand abstraction / new
framework, but that doesn't seem like a great choice either unless we
expect more users...
> Anyway, a remark inlined (at least):
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - i2c_hid_core_panel_prepared() and ..._unpreparing() are now static.
> >
> > drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c
> > index fa8a1ca43d7f..368db3ae612f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/i2c-hid/i2c-hid-core.c
> > @@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
> > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > #include <asm/unaligned.h>
> >
> > +#include <drm/drm_panel.h>
> > +
> > #include "../hid-ids.h"
> > #include "i2c-hid.h"
> >
> > @@ -107,6 +109,8 @@ struct i2c_hid {
> > struct mutex reset_lock;
> >
> > struct i2chid_ops *ops;
> > + struct drm_panel_follower panel_follower;
> > + bool is_panel_follower;
> > };
> >
> > static const struct i2c_hid_quirks {
> > @@ -1058,6 +1062,34 @@ static int i2c_hid_core_initial_power_up(struct i2c_hid *ihid)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int i2c_hid_core_panel_prepared(struct drm_panel_follower *follower)
> > +{
> > + struct i2c_hid *ihid = container_of(follower, struct i2c_hid, panel_follower);
> > + struct hid_device *hid = ihid->hid;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * hid->version is set on the first power up. If it's still zero then
> > + * this is the first power on so we should perform initial power up
> > + * steps.
> > + */
> > + if (!hid->version)
> > + return i2c_hid_core_initial_power_up(ihid);
> > +
> > + return i2c_hid_core_resume(ihid);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int i2c_hid_core_panel_unpreparing(struct drm_panel_follower *follower)
> > +{
> > + struct i2c_hid *ihid = container_of(follower, struct i2c_hid, panel_follower);
> > +
> > + return i2c_hid_core_suspend(ihid);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const struct drm_panel_follower_funcs i2c_hid_core_panel_follower_funcs = {
> > + .panel_prepared = i2c_hid_core_panel_prepared,
> > + .panel_unpreparing = i2c_hid_core_panel_unpreparing,
> > +};
>
> Can we make that above block at least behind a Kconfig?
>
> i2c-hid is often used for touchpads, and the notion of drm panel has
> nothing to do with them. So I'd be more confident if we could disable
> that code if not required.
Happy to put it behind a Kconfig. I'll plan on that for v3. I'll stub
the functions out if there is no Kconfig, but plan to still leave
structure members just to avoid uglifying the sources too much.
> Actually, I'd be even more happier if it were in a different compilation
> unit. Not necessary a different module, but at least a different file.
I suspect that it's not worth it, but I'll do this if you feel
strongly about it.
I guess the simplest way I can think of to move this to its own file
would be to put the whole private data structure (struct i2c_hid) in a
private header file and then add prototypes for i2c_hid_core_resume()
and i2c_hid_core_suspend() there. Then I could add something like
i2c_hid_core_handle_panel_follower() that would have all the
registration logic. I'd still need special cases in the core
suspend/resume/remove code unless I add a level of abstraction. While
the level of abstraction is more "pure", it also would make the code
harder to follow.
Unless I hear a strong opinion (or if this series changes
significantly), I'll plan to keep things in the same file and just use
a Kconfig.
