On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:50:38PM +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 08/31/2012 05:56 PM, Forest Bond wrote:
>
> > From: Forest Bond <forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > Certain eGalax devices expose an interface with class HID and protocol
> > None. Some work with usbhid and some work with usbtouchscreen, but
> > there is no easy way to differentiate. Sending an eGalax diagnostic
> > packet seems to kick them all into using the right protocol for
> > usbtouchscreen, so we can continue to bind them all there (as opposed to
> > handing some off to usbhid).
>
> > This fixes a regression for devices that were claimed by (and worked
> > with) usbhid prior to commit 139ebe8dc80dd74cb2ac9f5603d18fbf5cff049f,
>
> Please also specify that commit's summary ion parens.
>
> > which made usbtouchscreen claim them instead. With this patch they will
> > still be claimed by usbtouchscreen, but they will actually report events
> > usbtouchscreen can understand. Note that these devices will be limited
> > to the usbtouchscreen feature set so e.g. dual touch features are not
> > supported.
>
> > I have the distinct pleasure of needing to support devices of both types
> > and have tested accordingly.
>
> > Signed-off-by: Forest Bond <forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c
> > index e32709e..2ce5308 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/usbtouchscreen.c
> > @@ -304,6 +304,30 @@ static int e2i_read_data(struct usbtouch_usb *dev, unsigned char *pkt)
> > #define EGALAX_PKT_TYPE_REPT 0x80
> > #define EGALAX_PKT_TYPE_DIAG 0x0A
> >
> > +static int egalax_init(struct usbtouch_usb *usbtouch)
> > +{
> > + int ret, i;
> > + struct usb_device *udev = interface_to_usbdev(usbtouch->interface);
> > +
> > + /* An eGalax diagnostic packet kicks the device into using the right
> > + * protocol. */
>
> The preferred multi-line comment style is:
>
> /*
> * bla
> * bla
> */
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> > + /* Send a "check active" packet. The response will be read
> > + * later and ignored. */
> > + ret = usb_control_msg(udev, usb_rcvctrlpipe(udev, 0),
> > + 0,
> > + USB_DIR_OUT | USB_TYPE_VENDOR | USB_RECIP_DEVICE,
> > + 0, 0, "\x0A\x01A", 0,
>
> You probably can't send data from the .const section (as well as off the
> stack) -- they can be DMA'ed and there'll be issues with cache consistency on
> non-x86 arches. You should allocate the data with kmalloc().
> Although, on the second thought, maybe I'm wrong in this case... not really
> sure about sending -- receiving (to the .data section) could certainly be harmful...
Hmm, do we actually send anything here? The "size" passed to
usb_control_msg() is 0 so I don't think we use that data at all...
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
