Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] HID: cp2112: remove various hid_out_raw_report calls

[Benjamin Tissoires]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:47 AM, David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
> <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> hid_out_raw_report is going to be obsoleted as it is not part of the
>> unified HID low level transport documentation
>> (Documentation/hid/hid-transport.txt)
>>
>>   hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf), HID_FEATURE_REPORT);
>> is strictly equivalent to:
>>   hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf),
>>                 HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
>
> This time you might be right that feature-reports always put the
> report-id into the first byte, but I'd still prefer if we avoid using
> this. Besides, the code is much nicer imho if we pass the ID directly,
> see below..

Yes you are completely right.

Will send a v3 ASAP.

Cheers,
Benjamin

>
>>
>> So use the new api.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> no changes since v1
>>
>>  drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c | 12 ++++++------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c b/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c
>> index 1025982..860db694 100644
>> --- a/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c
>> +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-cp2112.c
>> @@ -185,8 +185,8 @@ static int cp2112_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>         buf[1] &= ~(1 << offset);
>>         buf[2] = gpio_push_pull;
>>
>> -       ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf),
>> -                                         HID_FEATURE_REPORT);
>> +       ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf),
>> +                                HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
>
> buf[0] => CP2112_GPIO_CONFIG
>
>>         if (ret < 0) {
>>                 hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO config: %d\n", ret);
>>                 return ret;
>> @@ -207,8 +207,8 @@ static void cp2112_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value)
>>         buf[1] = value ? 0xff : 0;
>>         buf[2] = 1 << offset;
>>
>> -       ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf),
>> -                                         HID_FEATURE_REPORT);
>> +       ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf),
>> +                                HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
>
> Here buf[0] seems fine as it is set explicitly just 3 lines above to
> CP2112_GPIO_SET.
>
>>         if (ret < 0)
>>                 hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO values: %d\n", ret);
>>  }
>> @@ -253,8 +253,8 @@ static int cp2112_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
>>         buf[1] |= 1 << offset;
>>         buf[2] = gpio_push_pull;
>>
>> -       ret = hdev->hid_output_raw_report(hdev, buf, sizeof(buf),
>> -                                         HID_FEATURE_REPORT);
>> +       ret = hid_hw_raw_request(hdev, buf[0], buf, sizeof(buf),
>> +                                HID_FEATURE_REPORT, HID_REQ_SET_REPORT);
>
> Here an explicit CP2112_GPIO_CONFIG seems nicer, imho.
>
> Thanks
> David
>
>>         if (ret < 0) {
>>                 hid_err(hdev, "error setting GPIO config: %d\n", ret);
>>                 return ret;
>> --
>> 1.8.5.3
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/