Hi Hans,
On 25/10/2020 08:03, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 10/20/20 2:15 AM, Mark Pearson wrote:
Use input device event support for notifying userspace of lap mode sensor
state changes.
Signed-off-by: Mark Pearson <markpearson@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
index 5ddf2775fb06..c20b9902270b 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/thinkpad_acpi.c
@@ -4013,7 +4013,7 @@ static bool hotkey_notify_usrevent(const u32 hkey,
}
static void thermal_dump_all_sensors(void);
-static void proxsensor_refresh(void);
+static void proxsensor_refresh(bool palm, bool lap);
static bool hotkey_notify_6xxx(const u32 hkey,
bool *send_acpi_ev,
@@ -4081,7 +4081,7 @@ static bool hotkey_notify_6xxx(const u32 hkey,
case TP_HKEY_EV_PALM_DETECTED:
case TP_HKEY_EV_PALM_UNDETECTED:
/* palm detected - pass on to event handler */
- proxsensor_refresh();
+ proxsensor_refresh(true /* palm */, false /* lap */);
return true;
default:
@@ -9929,6 +9929,23 @@ static struct ibm_struct dytc_driver_data = {
struct input_dev *tpacpi_sw_dev;
bool has_palmsensor;
bool palmsensor_state;
+bool has_lapsensor;
+bool lapsensor_state;
Again, drop the global _state caching, it is not necessary.
Agreed - will do.
+
+static int lapsensor_get(bool *present, bool *state)
+{
+ acpi_handle dytc_handle;
+ int output;
+
+ *present = false;
+ if (ACPI_FAILURE(acpi_get_handle(hkey_handle, "DYTC", &dytc_handle)))
+ return -ENODEV;
+ if (!acpi_evalf(dytc_handle, &output, NULL, "dd", DYTC_CMD_GET))
+ return -EIO;
+ *present = true; /*If we get his far, we have lapmode support*/
+ *state = output & BIT(DYTC_GET_LAPMODE_BIT) ? true : false;
+ return 0;
+}
static int palmsensor_get(bool *present, bool *state)
{
@@ -9945,36 +9962,56 @@ static int palmsensor_get(bool *present, bool *state)
return 0;
}
-static void proxsensor_refresh(void)
+static void proxsensor_refresh(bool palm, bool lap)
There is zero shared code between the palm ==true and the
lap ==true paths, please just make this 2 separate functions.
And then I guess rename the original proxsensor_refresh to
palmsensor_refresh (note please do this in the 2/3 patch)
and add a new lapsensor_refresh
Yeah - makes sense. Will do.
{
bool new_state;
int err;
- if (has_palmsensor) {
+ if (palm && has_palmsensor) {
err = palmsensor_get(&has_palmsensor, &new_state);
- if (err)
- return;
And then you can also keep the if (err) return; construct, which
is a bit cleaner (more common used) solution vs the !err way
of handling errors.
Agreed.
- if (new_state != palmsensor_state) {
+ if (!err && (new_state != palmsensor_state)) {
input_report_switch(tpacpi_sw_dev, SW_PALMREST_PROXIMITY, new_state);
input_sync(tpacpi_sw_dev);
palmsensor_state = new_state;
}
}
+
+ if (lap && has_lapsensor) {
+ err = lapsensor_get(&has_lapsensor, &new_state);
+ if (!err && (new_state != lapsensor_state)) {
+ input_report_switch(tpacpi_sw_dev, SW_LAP_PROXIMITY, new_state);
+ input_sync(tpacpi_sw_dev);
+ lapsensor_state = new_state;
Same as with the other patch there is no need for the
new_state != lapsensor_state check, the input core does this for you
turning reporting the same state twice into a no-op.
Agreed
+ }
+ }
}
static int tpacpi_proxsensor_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
{
- int palm_err;
+ int palm_err, lap_err, err;
+ /* Make sure globals are set to a sensible initial value */
+ has_palmsensor = false;
+ has_lapsensor = false;
palm_err = palmsensor_get(&has_palmsensor, &palmsensor_state);
+ lap_err = lapsensor_get(&has_lapsensor, &lapsensor_state);
+
/* If support isn't available (ENODEV) then don't return an error */
- if (palm_err == -ENODEV)
+ if ((palm_err == -ENODEV) && (lap_err == -ENODEV))
return 0;
return 1, see comment on previous patch.
## begin block ###
- /* For all other errors we can flag the failure */
+ /* If both sensors error out - return an error */
+ if (palm_err && lap_err)
+ return palm_err ? palm_err : lap_err;
+ /*
+ * If just one sensor not available, we still want the input device,
+ * so just flag it and carry on
+ */
if (palm_err)
- return palm_err;
+ pr_info("Palm sensor returned error %d", palm_err);
+ if (lap_err)
+ pr_info("Lap sensor returned error %d", lap_err);
### end block ###
thinkpad_acpi will typically error out completely on non -ENODEV
errors and the palmsensor code from patch 2/3 also does that.
Note that returning an error from a module/sub-driver's init() is
fatal (causes the module to not load), so before this change the
palmsensor_get call failing with a non -ENODEV error was fatal.
This may seem a bit harsh, but it is how error handling in
thinkpad_acpi has worked so far, so lets be consistent here.
Also if now only 1 of the 2 sensors is available you will log
the -ENODEV error.
So this whole block should be replaced with something like this:
if (palm_err && palm_err != ENODEV)
return palm_err;
if (lap_err && lap_err != ENODEV)
return lap_err;
Understood - that was my aim and I think I just messed up here.
Thanks
- if (has_palmsensor) {
+ if (has_palmsensor || has_lapsensor) {
tpacpi_sw_dev = input_allocate_device();
if (!tpacpi_sw_dev)
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -9990,10 +10027,14 @@ static int tpacpi_proxsensor_init(struct ibm_init_struct *iibm)
input_set_capability(tpacpi_sw_dev, EV_SW, SW_PALMREST_PROXIMITY);
input_report_switch(tpacpi_sw_dev, SW_PALMREST_PROXIMITY, palmsensor_state);
}
- palm_err = input_register_device(tpacpi_sw_dev);
- if (palm_err) {
+ if (has_lapsensor) {
+ input_set_capability(tpacpi_sw_dev, EV_SW, SW_LAP_PROXIMITY);
+ input_report_switch(tpacpi_sw_dev, SW_LAP_PROXIMITY, lapsensor_state);
+ }
+ err = input_register_device(tpacpi_sw_dev);
+ if (err) {
input_free_device(tpacpi_sw_dev);
- return palm_err;
+ return err;
}
}
return 0;
@@ -10057,8 +10098,10 @@ static void tpacpi_driver_event(const unsigned int hkey_event)
mutex_unlock(&kbdlight_mutex);
}
- if (hkey_event == TP_HKEY_EV_THM_CSM_COMPLETED)
+ if (hkey_event == TP_HKEY_EV_THM_CSM_COMPLETED) {
dytc_lapmode_refresh();
+ proxsensor_refresh(false /* palm */, true /* lap */);
+ }
}
Otherwise this looks good to me,
Regards,
Hans
Thanks for the review
Mark
