Hi Takashi, at my first shot published to github I had an approach which makes thinkpad_acpi and hid-lenovo mutual exclusive (https://github.com/dwassenberg/linux/tree/development/hid-rmi). This approach has some issues. For example in case of thinkpad_acpi and hid-lenovo module is loaded (e.g. at Lenovo ThinkPad X1 Tablet) the symbol request to tpacpi_led_set is successful so the thinkpad_helper will decide in favor of thinkpad_acpi. So I need to add something which checks the return code of tpacpi_led_set. If -ENODEV is returned it can try hid-lenovo.
But the reason why I made thinkpad_acpi and hid-lenovo work in parallel was that if it is mutual exclusive there is no possibility to control LEDs of external Lenovo USB keyboards which are connected to a Thinkpad. Currently (including the other patches) there is only the X1 Tablet Cover LEDs which is controllable from external code. But the hid-lenovo driver is able to handle different Lenovo USB Keyboards. - ThinkPad USB Keyboard with TrackPoint (tpkbd) - ThinkPad Compact Bluetooth Keyboard with TrackPoint (cptkbd) - ThinkPad Compact USB Keyboard with TrackPoint (cptkbd) - ThinkPad X1 Cover USB Keyboard with TrackPoint and Touchpad (tpx1cover) These keyboards have these LEDs too. For some of these keyboards a LED control is implemented inside hid-lenovo too. If thinkpad_acpi and hid-lenovo is mutual exclusive it is impossible to let the thinkpad_helper control the LEDs of these external USB keyboards if they are connected to a thinkpad. I don't know if anyone will do this, but I don't want to take the possibility to do such thinks :) So.. if there is the decision (from your side) that this should be mutual exclusive I will prepare a v2 which the mutual exclusive approach I described at the top. Thank you & best regards, Dennis On 12.09.2016 14:38, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:47:03 +0200, > Dennis Wassenberg wrote: >> >> Make the thinkpad_helper able to support not only led control over >> acpi with thinkpad_acpi driver but also led control over hid-lenovo. >> The hid-lenovo driver adapted the led control api of thinkpad_acpi. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dennis Wassenberg <[email protected]> >> --- >> sound/pci/hda/thinkpad_helper.c | 149 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- >> 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/sound/pci/hda/thinkpad_helper.c >> b/sound/pci/hda/thinkpad_helper.c >> index 62741a7..c24a4a9 100644 >> --- a/sound/pci/hda/thinkpad_helper.c >> +++ b/sound/pci/hda/thinkpad_helper.c >> @@ -2,79 +2,152 @@ >> * to be included from codec driver >> */ >> >> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI) >> - >> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HID_LENOVO) >> #include <linux/acpi.h> >> +#include <linux/hid-lenovo.h> >> #include <linux/thinkpad_acpi.h> >> >> -static int (*led_set_func)(int, bool); >> +static int (*led_set_func_tpacpi)(int, bool); >> +static int (*led_set_func_hid_lenovo)(int, bool); >> static void (*old_vmaster_hook)(void *, int); >> >> static bool is_thinkpad(struct hda_codec *codec) >> { >> + return (codec->core.subsystem_id >> 16 == 0x17aa); >> +} >> + >> +static bool is_thinkpad_acpi(struct hda_codec *codec) >> +{ >> return (codec->core.subsystem_id >> 16 == 0x17aa) && >> (acpi_dev_found("LEN0068") || acpi_dev_found("IBM0068")); >> } >> >> -static void update_tpacpi_mute_led(void *private_data, int enabled) >> +static void update_thinkpad_mute_led(void *private_data, int enabled) >> { >> if (old_vmaster_hook) >> old_vmaster_hook(private_data, enabled); >> >> - if (led_set_func) >> - led_set_func(TPACPI_LED_MUTE, !enabled); >> + if (led_set_func_tpacpi) >> + led_set_func_tpacpi(TPACPI_LED_MUTE, !enabled); >> + >> + if (led_set_func_hid_lenovo) >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo(HID_LENOVO_LED_MUTE, !enabled); >> } >> >> -static void update_tpacpi_micmute_led(struct hda_codec *codec, >> + >> + >> +static void update_thinkpad_micmute_led(struct hda_codec *codec, >> struct snd_kcontrol *kcontrol, >> struct snd_ctl_elem_value *ucontrol) >> { >> - if (!ucontrol || !led_set_func) >> + if (!ucontrol) >> return; >> if (strcmp("Capture Switch", ucontrol->id.name) == 0 && >> ucontrol->id.index == 0) { >> /* TODO: How do I verify if it's a mono or stereo here? */ >> bool val = ucontrol->value.integer.value[0] || >> ucontrol->value.integer.value[1]; >> - led_set_func(TPACPI_LED_MICMUTE, !val); >> + if (led_set_func_tpacpi) >> + led_set_func_tpacpi(TPACPI_LED_MICMUTE, !val); >> + if (led_set_func_hid_lenovo) >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo(HID_LENOVO_LED_MICMUTE, !val); >> } >> } >> >> -static void hda_fixup_thinkpad(struct hda_codec *codec, >> - const struct hda_fixup *fix, int action) >> +static int hda_fixup_thinkpad_acpi(struct hda_codec *codec) >> { >> struct hda_gen_spec *spec = codec->spec; >> - bool removefunc = false; >> + int ret = -ENXIO; >> >> - if (action == HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PROBE) { >> - if (!is_thinkpad(codec)) >> - return; >> - if (!led_set_func) >> - led_set_func = symbol_request(tpacpi_led_set); >> - if (!led_set_func) { >> - codec_warn(codec, >> - "Failed to find thinkpad-acpi symbol >> tpacpi_led_set\n"); >> - return; >> - } >> + if (!is_thinkpad(codec)) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + if (!is_thinkpad_acpi(codec)) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + if (!led_set_func_tpacpi) >> + led_set_func_tpacpi = symbol_request(tpacpi_led_set); > > This would be performed even if CONFIG_THINKPAD_ACPI=n when > CONFIG_HID_LENOVO!=n. You'd need to have a proper ifdef surrounding > the function. > > >> + if (!led_set_func_tpacpi) { >> + codec_warn(codec, >> + "Failed to find thinkpad-acpi symbol >> tpacpi_led_set\n"); >> + return -ENOENT; >> + } >> >> - removefunc = true; >> - if (led_set_func(TPACPI_LED_MUTE, false) >= 0) { >> - old_vmaster_hook = spec->vmaster_mute.hook; >> - spec->vmaster_mute.hook = update_tpacpi_mute_led; >> - removefunc = false; >> - } >> - if (led_set_func(TPACPI_LED_MICMUTE, false) >= 0) { >> - if (spec->num_adc_nids > 1) >> - codec_dbg(codec, >> - "Skipping micmute LED control due to >> several ADCs"); >> - else { >> - spec->cap_sync_hook = update_tpacpi_micmute_led; >> - removefunc = false; >> - } >> + if (led_set_func_tpacpi(TPACPI_LED_MUTE, false) >= 0) { >> + old_vmaster_hook = spec->vmaster_mute.hook; >> + spec->vmaster_mute.hook = update_thinkpad_mute_led; >> + ret = 0; >> + } >> + >> + if (led_set_func_tpacpi(TPACPI_LED_MICMUTE, false) >= 0) { >> + if (spec->num_adc_nids > 1) >> + codec_dbg(codec, >> + "Skipping micmute LED control due to several >> ADCs"); >> + else { >> + spec->cap_sync_hook = update_thinkpad_micmute_led; >> + ret = 0; >> } >> } >> >> - if (led_set_func && (action == HDA_FIXUP_ACT_FREE || removefunc)) { >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> +static int hda_fixup_thinkpad_hid(struct hda_codec *codec) >> +{ >> + struct hda_gen_spec *spec = codec->spec; >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + if (!is_thinkpad(codec)) >> + return -ENODEV; >> + if (!led_set_func_hid_lenovo) >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo = symbol_request(hid_lenovo_led_set); >> + if (!led_set_func_hid_lenovo) { >> + codec_warn(codec, >> + "Failed to find hid-lenovo symbol >> hid_lenovo_led_set\n"); >> + return -ENOENT; >> + } >> + >> + if (update_thinkpad_mute_led != spec->vmaster_mute.hook) >> + old_vmaster_hook = spec->vmaster_mute.hook; >> + >> + // do not remove hook if setting delay does not work currently because >> + // it is a usb hid devices which is not connected right now >> + // maybe is will be connected later > > The comment should be C style. Try checkpatch.pl once before the > patch submission. > > >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo(HID_LENOVO_LED_MUTE, false); >> + spec->vmaster_mute.hook = update_thinkpad_mute_led; >> + >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo(HID_LENOVO_LED_MICMUTE, false); >> + spec->cap_sync_hook = update_thinkpad_micmute_led; >> + >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> +static void hda_fixup_thinkpad(struct hda_codec *codec, >> + const struct hda_fixup *fix, int action) >> +{ >> + int ret_fixup_acpi = 0; >> + int ret_fixup_hid = 0; >> + bool remove = 0; >> + >> + if (action == HDA_FIXUP_ACT_PROBE) { >> + ret_fixup_acpi = hda_fixup_thinkpad_acpi(codec); >> + ret_fixup_hid = hda_fixup_thinkpad_hid(codec); > > Basically these two are exclusive. So you don't have to process the > latter when the former succeeds. But... > >> + } >> + >> + if (led_set_func_tpacpi && >> + (action == HDA_FIXUP_ACT_FREE || ret_fixup_acpi)) { >> + >> symbol_put(tpacpi_led_set); >> - led_set_func = NULL; >> + remove = true; >> + } >> + >> + if (led_set_func_hid_lenovo && >> + (action == HDA_FIXUP_ACT_FREE || ret_fixup_hid)) { >> + >> + symbol_put(hid_lenovo_led_set); >> + remove = true; >> + } >> + >> + >> + if (remove) { >> + led_set_func_tpacpi = NULL; >> + led_set_func_hid_lenovo = NULL; >> old_vmaster_hook = NULL; >> } >> } > > ... reading through the patch, I find the code is a bit too > redundant. The access is exclusive between ACPI and HID, and the hook > functions are in the same form but just the argument value is > different (TPACPI_LED_MUTE vs HID_LENOVO_LED_MUTE). So we may need > only a single function pointer and pass the different value depending > on the model instead of keeping two individual function pointers. > > > thanks, > > Takashi > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sound" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
