Re: [RFC 0/8] HID: Transport Driver Cleanup

From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@gmail.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@euromail.se>,
	Oliver Neukum <oliver@neukum.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/8] HID: Transport Driver Cleanup
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 11:03:50 +0200 (CEST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1307311102450.18809@pobox.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANq1E4TTKgVtCp0t3h0SKhHqyfGePBxz_B3NZpD+FDjLgmbpEQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 31 Jul 2013, David Herrmann wrote:

> >> This series provides some cleanups for HID transport drivers:
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > thanks a lot for your work, again.
> >
> > I have now applied all the patches from the series, except for:
> >
> > - 3/8, waiting for v2
> 
> Ugh, patches 4-6 use the generic helper from 3 implicitly. So with the
> current tree, they will not be able to send any LED events. I think my
> conclusion in the discussion on #3 was wrong. I cannot rebase it on
> the end of the series. Sorry, I missed that.
> 
> For v2, as mentioned in the thread, I cannot write a generic fallback
> for hid_hw_request() without patch #8. That's because the transport
> drivers handle the raw reports differently. #8 fixes that.
> 
> So imho we should apply #3 as it is now. If we ever have a generic
> hid_hw_request(), we can just move the code from the LED handler to
> hid_hw_request_generic().

Bah, brainfart on my side as well. You are right. I am now pulling 3/8 
into the tree as well and pushing it out.

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs