> New BIOSs
"BIOSs" looks a bit funky. Perhaps use "Recent firmwares" instead?
> include a features
feature
> called 5 button array that supports
> super key, volume up/down, rotation lock and power button. Especially,
> it is required to fix power button on some recent systems.
Not sure what "it" refers to. The feature? The patch? Perhaps use
"Support for this feature is required..." instead?
>
> This patch was tested on a Dell Latitude 7280.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/platform/x86/intel-hid.c | 105 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 101 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-hid.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-hid.c
> index cb3ab2b..691fb15 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel-hid.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel-hid.c
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /*
> - * Intel HID event driver for Windows 8
> + * Intel HID event & 5 Buttn Array driver
Button
> *
> * Copyright (C) 2015 Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> * Copyright (C) 2015 Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> @@ -57,8 +57,23 @@ static const struct key_entry intel_hid_keymap[] = {
> { KE_END },
> };
>
> +/* 5 button array notification value. */
> +static const struct key_entry intel_array_keymap[] = {
> + { KE_KEY, 0xC2, { KEY_LEFTMETA} }, /* Press */
> + { KE_IGNORE, 0xC3, { KEY_LEFTMETA} }, /* Release */
> + { KE_KEY, 0xC4, { KEY_VOLUMEUP} }, /* Press */
> + { KE_IGNORE, 0xC5, { KEY_VOLUMEUP} }, /* Release */
> + { KE_KEY, 0xC6, { KEY_VOLUMEDOWN} }, /* Press */
> + { KE_IGNORE, 0xC7, { KEY_VOLUMEDOWN} }, /* Release */
> + { KE_KEY, 0xC8, { KEY_UNKNOWN} }, /* Press */
> + { KE_IGNORE, 0xC9, { KEY_UNKNOWN} }, /* Release */
Based on the commit message, I understand these two are related to
rotation lock. There is a comment inside intel_hid_keymap that says:
/* 2: Toggle SW_ROTATE_LOCK -- easy to implement if seen in wild */
Perhaps this should be properly handled instead of just generating
KEY_UNKNOWN?
> + { KE_KEY, 0xCE, { KEY_POWER} }, /* Press */
> + { KE_IGNORE, 0xCF, { KEY_POWER} }, /* Release */
> + { KE_END },
> +};
An empty line below this one would not hurt.
> struct intel_hid_priv {
> struct input_dev *input_dev;
> + struct input_dev *array;
> };
>
> static int intel_hid_set_enable(struct device *device, int enable)
> @@ -78,15 +93,45 @@ static int intel_hid_set_enable(struct device *device, int enable)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static void intel_button_array_enable(struct device *device, int enable)
> +{
> + struct intel_hid_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(device);
> + acpi_handle handle = ACPI_HANDLE(device);
> + acpi_status status;
> + union acpi_object arg0 = { ACPI_TYPE_INTEGER };
> + struct acpi_object_list args = { 1, &arg0 };
> + unsigned long long button_cap;
Variable declarations should be in "reverse Christmas tree" order.
> +
> + if (!priv->array)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Query supported platform features */
> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "BTNC", NULL, &button_cap);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> + dev_warn(device, "failed to get button capability\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* Enable|disable features - Power Button is always enabled */
> + arg0.integer.value = enable ? button_cap : 1;
> + status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "BTNE", &args, NULL);
If you used acpi_execute_simple_method() instead, you could drop arg0
and args.
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> + dev_warn(device, "failed to set button capability\n");
> +}
> +
> static int intel_hid_pl_suspend_handler(struct device *device)
> {
> intel_hid_set_enable(device, 0);
> + intel_button_array_enable(device, 0);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> static int intel_hid_pl_resume_handler(struct device *device)
> {
> intel_hid_set_enable(device, 1);
> + intel_button_array_enable(device, 1);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -126,11 +171,43 @@ static int intel_hid_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
> return ret;
> }
>
> +static int intel_button_array_input_setup(struct platform_device *device)
> +{
> + struct intel_hid_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
> + int ret;
> +
> + /* Setup input device for 5 button array */
> + priv->array = input_allocate_device();
> + if (!priv->array)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + ret = sparse_keymap_setup(priv->array, intel_array_keymap, NULL);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_array_device;
> +
> + priv->array->dev.parent = &device->dev;
> + priv->array->name = "Intel HID 5 button array";
> + priv->array->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
> +
> + ret = input_register_device(priv->array);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err_free_array_device;
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_free_array_device:
> + input_free_device(priv->array);
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> static void intel_hid_input_destroy(struct platform_device *device)
> {
> struct intel_hid_priv *priv = dev_get_drvdata(&device->dev);
>
> input_unregister_device(priv->input_dev);
> +
> + if (priv->array)
> + input_unregister_device(priv->array);
> }
>
> static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> @@ -140,10 +217,11 @@ static void notify_handler(acpi_handle handle, u32 event, void *context)
> unsigned long long ev_index;
> acpi_status status;
>
> - /* The platform spec only defines one event code: 0xC0. */
> + /* 0xC0 is for HID events, other values are for 5 button array */
> if (event != 0xc0) {
> - dev_warn(&device->dev, "received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
> - event);
> + if (!priv->array ||
> + !sparse_keymap_report_event(priv->array, event, 1, true))
> + dev_info(&device->dev, "unknown event 0x%x\n", event);
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -165,6 +243,7 @@ static int intel_hid_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> unsigned long long mode;
> acpi_status status;
> int err;
> + unsigned long long event_cap;
My variable declaration ordering remark from above also applies here.
Plus, you can declare mode and event_cap in one line.
>
> status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "HDMM", NULL, &mode);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> @@ -193,6 +272,15 @@ static int intel_hid_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> return err;
> }
>
> + /* Setup 5 button array */
> + status = acpi_evaluate_integer(handle, "HEBC", NULL, &event_cap);
> + if (ACPI_SUCCESS(status) && event_cap & 0x20000) {
While this is technically correct, parentheses around the bitwise OR
would not hurt.
> + dev_info(&device->dev, "platform supports 5 button array\n");
> + err = intel_button_array_input_setup(device);
> + if (err)
> + pr_err("Failed to setup Intel 5 buttn array hotkeys\n");
button
> + }
> +
> status = acpi_install_notify_handler(handle,
> ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY,
> notify_handler,
> @@ -206,6 +294,14 @@ static int intel_hid_probe(struct platform_device *device)
> if (err)
> goto err_remove_notify;
>
> + if (priv->array) {
> + intel_button_array_enable(&device->dev, 1);
> + status = acpi_evaluate_object(handle, "BTNL", NULL, NULL);
> + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> + dev_warn(&device->dev,
> + "failed to load 10s Power Button\n");
Could you explain what this ACPI call is supposed to do? What does it
mean to "load 10s Power Button"?
> + }
> +
> return 0;
>
> err_remove_notify:
> @@ -224,6 +320,7 @@ static int intel_hid_remove(struct platform_device *device)
> acpi_remove_notify_handler(handle, ACPI_DEVICE_NOTIFY, notify_handler);
> intel_hid_input_destroy(device);
> intel_hid_set_enable(&device->dev, 0);
> + intel_button_array_enable(&device->dev, 0);
>
> /*
> * Even if we failed to shut off the event stream, we can still
> --
> 2.7.4
>
One last nitpick: the comment at the top of the file says "5 Button
Array" (capitalized) while the rest of the comments use lowercase "5
button array". I am not aware whether "5 Button Array" is the official
name of this feature, though it would be nice if it was capitalized
consistently. Just a suggestion, though.
--
Best regards,
Michał Kępień
