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 dennis.wassenberg@secunet.com
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;}
... 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