Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

On 04/23/2018 09:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.

Really sorry about this, my bad.
I had an impression that the only change we need to
discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial

I am sorry I did not respond to the previous version until today, but I
do not think that we should be extending module parameters for this.
Protocol features are already there for absolute pointers and
multi-touch, keyboard and relative pointers should use the same
mechanism.

Ok, then I'll start from extending the protocol

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

On 04/23/2018 09:55 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.

Really sorry about this, my bad.
I had an impression that the only change we need to
discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial

I am sorry I did not respond to the previous version until today, but I
do not think that we should be extending module parameters for this.
Protocol features are already there for absolute pointers and
multi-touch, keyboard and relative pointers should use the same
mechanism.

Ok, then I'll start from extending the protocol

Thanks.

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
> > > any comment on this?
> > Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
> > not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
> > review) might appear.
> > 
> > I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
> > to look at your patches.
> > 
> > Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
> > is rather unfriendly.
> Really sorry about this, my bad.
> I had an impression that the only change we need to
> discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial

I am sorry I did not respond to the previous version until today, but I
do not think that we should be extending module parameters for this.
Protocol features are already there for absolute pointers and
multi-touch, keyboard and relative pointers should use the same
mechanism.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 11:29:45AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> > > Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
> > > any comment on this?
> > Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
> > not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
> > review) might appear.
> > 
> > I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
> > to look at your patches.
> > 
> > Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
> > is rather unfriendly.
> Really sorry about this, my bad.
> I had an impression that the only change we need to
> discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial

I am sorry I did not respond to the previous version until today, but I
do not think that we should be extending module parameters for this.
Protocol features are already there for absolute pointers and
multi-touch, keyboard and relative pointers should use the same
mechanism.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.

Really sorry about this, my bad.
I had an impression that the only change we need to
discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial


Juergen

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

On 04/23/2018 11:23 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.

Really sorry about this, my bad.
I had an impression that the only change we need to
discuss was uint -> bool change which seemed rather trivial


Juergen

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Juergen Gross]

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
> any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.


Juergen

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Juergen Gross]

On 23/04/18 10:02, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
> any comment on this?

Oleksandr, please give us some time. I can't speak for others, but I am
not sitting here idling and hoping that some work (e.g. patches to
review) might appear.

I have a lot of other stuff to do and will respond when I find some time
to look at your patches.

Pinging others on Monday when having sent out the patch only on Thursday
is rather unfriendly.


Juergen

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Thank you,
Oleksandr
On 04/19/2018 04:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko 

It is now only possible to control if multi-touch virtual device
is created or not (via the corresponding XenStore entries),
but keyboard and pointer devices are always created.
In some cases this is not desirable. For example, if virtual
keyboard device is exposed to Android then the latter won't
automatically show on-screen keyboard as it expects that a
physical keyboard device can be used for typing.

Make it possible to configure which virtual devices are created
with module parameters:
   - provide no_ptr_dev if no pointer device needs to be created
   - provide no_kbd_dev if no keyboard device needs to be created
Keep old behavior by default.

Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko 
Suggested-by: Andrii Chepurnyi 
Tested-by: Andrii Chepurnyi 
---
Changes since v1:
   - changed module parameters from uint to bool

  drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c | 159 +-
  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c 
b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
index d91f3b1c5375..d8cca212f737 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
@@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ module_param_array(ptr_size, int, NULL, 0444);
  MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
"Pointing device width, height in pixels (default 800,600)");
  
+static bool no_ptr_dev;

+module_param(no_ptr_dev, bool, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_ptr_dev,
+   "If set then no virtual pointing device exposed to the guest");
+
+static bool no_kbd_dev;
+module_param(no_kbd_dev, bool, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_kbd_dev,
+   "If set then no virtual keyboard device exposed to the guest");
+
  static int xenkbd_remove(struct xenbus_device *);
  static int xenkbd_connect_backend(struct xenbus_device *, struct xenkbd_info 
*);
  static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
@@ -63,6 +73,9 @@ static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
  static void xenkbd_handle_motion_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
   struct xenkbd_motion *motion)
  {
+   if (unlikely(!info->ptr))
+   return;
+
input_report_rel(info->ptr, REL_X, motion->rel_x);
input_report_rel(info->ptr, REL_Y, motion->rel_y);
if (motion->rel_z)
@@ -73,6 +86,9 @@ static void xenkbd_handle_motion_event(struct xenkbd_info 
*info,
  static void xenkbd_handle_position_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
 struct xenkbd_position *pos)
  {
+   if (unlikely(!info->ptr))
+   return;
+
input_report_abs(info->ptr, ABS_X, pos->abs_x);
input_report_abs(info->ptr, ABS_Y, pos->abs_y);
if (pos->rel_z)
@@ -97,6 +113,9 @@ static void xenkbd_handle_key_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
return;
}
  
+	if (unlikely(!dev))

+   return;
+
input_event(dev, EV_KEY, key->keycode, value);
input_sync(dev);
  }
@@ -192,7 +211,7 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
  const struct xenbus_device_id *id)
  {
int ret, i;
-   unsigned int abs, touch;
+   unsigned int touch;
struct xenkbd_info *info;
struct input_dev *kbd, *ptr, *mtouch;
  
@@ -211,24 +230,6 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,

if (!info->page)
goto error_nomem;
  
-	/* Set input abs params to match backend screen res */

-   abs = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
-  XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_ABS_POINTER, 0);
-   ptr_size[KPARAM_X] = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
- XENKBD_FIELD_WIDTH,
- ptr_size[KPARAM_X]);
-   ptr_size[KPARAM_Y] = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
- XENKBD_FIELD_HEIGHT,
- ptr_size[KPARAM_Y]);
-   if (abs) {
-   ret = xenbus_write(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename,
-  XENKBD_FIELD_REQ_ABS_POINTER, "1");
-   if (ret) {
-   pr_warn("xenkbd: can't request abs-pointer\n");
-   abs = 0;
-   }
-   }
-
touch = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->nodename,
 XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_MTOUCH, 0);
if (touch) {
@@ -241,60 +242,84 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
}
  
  	/* keyboard */

-   kbd = input_allocate_device();
-   if (!kbd)
-   goto error_nomem;
-   kbd->name = "Xen Virtual Keyboard";
-   kbd->phys = info->phys;
-   

Re: [PATCH v2] Input: xen-kbdfront - allow better run-time configuration

[Oleksandr Andrushchenko]

Juergen, Jason, Dmitry
any comment on this?

Thank you,
Oleksandr
On 04/19/2018 04:39 PM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:

From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko 

It is now only possible to control if multi-touch virtual device
is created or not (via the corresponding XenStore entries),
but keyboard and pointer devices are always created.
In some cases this is not desirable. For example, if virtual
keyboard device is exposed to Android then the latter won't
automatically show on-screen keyboard as it expects that a
physical keyboard device can be used for typing.

Make it possible to configure which virtual devices are created
with module parameters:
   - provide no_ptr_dev if no pointer device needs to be created
   - provide no_kbd_dev if no keyboard device needs to be created
Keep old behavior by default.

Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko 
Suggested-by: Andrii Chepurnyi 
Tested-by: Andrii Chepurnyi 
---
Changes since v1:
   - changed module parameters from uint to bool

  drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c | 159 +-
  1 file changed, 92 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c 
b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
index d91f3b1c5375..d8cca212f737 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
@@ -51,6 +51,16 @@ module_param_array(ptr_size, int, NULL, 0444);
  MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
"Pointing device width, height in pixels (default 800,600)");
  
+static bool no_ptr_dev;

+module_param(no_ptr_dev, bool, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_ptr_dev,
+   "If set then no virtual pointing device exposed to the guest");
+
+static bool no_kbd_dev;
+module_param(no_kbd_dev, bool, 0);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(no_kbd_dev,
+   "If set then no virtual keyboard device exposed to the guest");
+
  static int xenkbd_remove(struct xenbus_device *);
  static int xenkbd_connect_backend(struct xenbus_device *, struct xenkbd_info 
*);
  static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
@@ -63,6 +73,9 @@ static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
  static void xenkbd_handle_motion_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
   struct xenkbd_motion *motion)
  {
+   if (unlikely(!info->ptr))
+   return;
+
input_report_rel(info->ptr, REL_X, motion->rel_x);
input_report_rel(info->ptr, REL_Y, motion->rel_y);
if (motion->rel_z)
@@ -73,6 +86,9 @@ static void xenkbd_handle_motion_event(struct xenkbd_info 
*info,
  static void xenkbd_handle_position_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
 struct xenkbd_position *pos)
  {
+   if (unlikely(!info->ptr))
+   return;
+
input_report_abs(info->ptr, ABS_X, pos->abs_x);
input_report_abs(info->ptr, ABS_Y, pos->abs_y);
if (pos->rel_z)
@@ -97,6 +113,9 @@ static void xenkbd_handle_key_event(struct xenkbd_info *info,
return;
}
  
+	if (unlikely(!dev))

+   return;
+
input_event(dev, EV_KEY, key->keycode, value);
input_sync(dev);
  }
@@ -192,7 +211,7 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
  const struct xenbus_device_id *id)
  {
int ret, i;
-   unsigned int abs, touch;
+   unsigned int touch;
struct xenkbd_info *info;
struct input_dev *kbd, *ptr, *mtouch;
  
@@ -211,24 +230,6 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,

if (!info->page)
goto error_nomem;
  
-	/* Set input abs params to match backend screen res */

-   abs = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
-  XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_ABS_POINTER, 0);
-   ptr_size[KPARAM_X] = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
- XENKBD_FIELD_WIDTH,
- ptr_size[KPARAM_X]);
-   ptr_size[KPARAM_Y] = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->otherend,
- XENKBD_FIELD_HEIGHT,
- ptr_size[KPARAM_Y]);
-   if (abs) {
-   ret = xenbus_write(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename,
-  XENKBD_FIELD_REQ_ABS_POINTER, "1");
-   if (ret) {
-   pr_warn("xenkbd: can't request abs-pointer\n");
-   abs = 0;
-   }
-   }
-
touch = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->nodename,
 XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_MTOUCH, 0);
if (touch) {
@@ -241,60 +242,84 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
}
  
  	/* keyboard */

-   kbd = input_allocate_device();
-   if (!kbd)
-   goto error_nomem;
-   kbd->name = "Xen Virtual Keyboard";
-   kbd->phys = info->phys;
-   kbd->id.bustype = BUS_PCI;
-   kbd->id.vendor = 0x5853;
-   kbd->id.product = 0x;
-
-   __set_bit(EV_KEY,