Re: [PATCH] Input: xpad - power off wireless 360 controllers on suspend

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 05:10:41PM -0700, Cameron Gutman wrote:

On 07/27/2016 05:04 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 04:24:06PM -0700, Cameron Gutman wrote:

quoted

On 07/27/2016 02:39 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 02:32:22PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:35:08PM -0700, Cameron Gutman wrote:

quoted

When the USB wireless adapter is suspended, the controllers
lose their connection. This causes them to start flashing
their LED rings and searching for the wireless adapter
again, wasting the controller's battery power.

Instead, we will tell the controllers to power down when
we suspend. This mirrors the behavior of the controllers
when connected to the console itself and how the official
Xbox One wireless adapter behaves on Windows.

Signed-off-by: Cameron Gutman <redacted>
---
This patch is independent of the other xpad patch [0] that I
submitted (and decided to wait on). It applies against
unmodified xpad.c in master.

[0] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg46062.html
---
 drivers/input/joystick/xpad.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/joystick/xpad.c b/drivers/input/joystick/xpad.c
index a529a45..3408019 100644
--- a/drivers/input/joystick/xpad.c
+++ b/drivers/input/joystick/xpad.c

@@ -115,6 +115,10 @@ static bool sticks_to_null;
 module_param(sticks_to_null, bool, S_IRUGO);
 MODULE_PARM_DESC(sticks_to_null, "Do not map sticks at all for unknown pads");
 
+static bool disable_auto_poweroff;
+module_param(disable_auto_poweroff, bool, S_IRUGO);
+MODULE_PARM_DESC(disable_auto_poweroff, "Do not power off wireless controllers on suspend");

Why negating? Why not do

static bool xpad_auto_poweroff = true;

?

(No need to resubmit if agree/disagree, I can fix up on my side).

Yeah, sounds fine to make it default Y and get rid of the negation.

I'm fine with it if you want to make that change and apply it. See my
comments below about the other issues.

quoted

By the way, I think we can allow root writing to it, there is nothing
that stops us from changing behavior at runtime.

Yep, I was following the convention of the existing module params. They
can probably all be changed to allow root writing.

My rule of thumb is we allow writing if behavior changes immediately.
The other parameters only affect devices that will be bound after the
parameter has been changed, which woudl be confusing. So they are RO and
you have to specify them at module load time.

Thanks.

Sounds reasonable. Would you like to make the permission change also or
do you prefer I resubmit the patch with those 2 modifications?

No, I made them. If you have a moment please take a look at my "next"
branch on kernel.org.

-- 
Dmitry