Hi Dmitry and Ping,

I understand that we should stick with HID as much as possible.
However, there're certainly situations in which some do not want even whole HID, but only an individual functionality for a certain device.
In that case, they may not even include the bit of the HID, but exclude HID. What about then; what they should do without HID?
This would be also the questions if such situations happened to other vendors than Wacom.

Also, what I need to add is that the early generations of our I2C devices do not support HID which is why "wacom_i2c" was added in 2011.


Tats

-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> 
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:56 PM
To: Ping Cheng <redacted>
Cc: Tobita, Tatsunosuke <redacted>; Alistair Francis <redacted>; Cheng, Ping <Ping.Cheng@wacom.com>; linux-input <redacted>; linux-imx@nxp.com; kernel@pengutronix.de; Tatsunosuke Tobita <redacted>; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; alistair23@gmail.com; robh+dt@kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 05/12] Input: wacom_i2c - Read the descriptor values

[EXTERNAL]

Hi Ping,

On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:25:43PM -0700, Ping Cheng wrote:

Hi Dmitry,

On Mon, Sep 6, 2021, 11:05 PM Dmitry Torokhov 
[off-list ref]
wrote:

quoted

Hi Tatsunosuke,

On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 07:33:49AM +0000, Tobita, Tatsunosuke wrote:

quoted

Hi Dmitry,

Yes, our firmware supports HID over I2C.  However, some of our 
customers often do not want to use HID to handle our hardware; 
even they don't install the generic HID driver neither.  In such 
case, we need to distinguish what generation of our device 
customer's has. And to do so, we check I2C HID descriptor even 
though the driver is not working with HID driver components, but 
this one.  That is why I2C HID descriptor is used there. It is 
called, but the situation with this driver is not supposed to work as a HID device.

I would like to understand better why the customers do not want to 
use HID.

Those customers normally run embedded Linux. Their hardwares have very 
specific use cases. They don't need to support any other HID devices 
except the Wacom i2c device.

quoted

There needs to be a _very_ strong reason to essentially duplicate

quoted

HID layer in a vendor driver and I inclined to say that such 
customers

would need to patch their kernels themselves.


They most likely don't want to duplicate HID layer. They just don't 
need most of the HID layer code.

They just need touchscreen support. Plus stylus support. And maybe battery support. And maybe something else down the road... And they need to introduce DT and ACPI descriptors to be able to mould the behavior to platform needs. Which is pretty much the purpose of HID layer.

wacom_i2c simplifies their deployment and testing process. Most of 
those customers are very small companies...

And now please continue this train of thoughts and consider every touch vendor. Wacom is not unique. We have Elan, Cypress, Weida, Goodix, etc.
etc. Vendor drivers were acceptable before we had I2C standard, but now it is much better for everyone to share the efforts and use HID instead of replicating it for every vendor.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry