Hi Mark,
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 11:03 AM Mark Pearson <mpear...@lenovo.com> wrote: > > Hi Rajat, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rajat Jain <raja...@google.com> > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:39 PM > > > > > > For this particular issue what is the best way to contribute and get > > > involved? We'd like to make it so ePrivacy can be used more easily from > > > Linux. I agree a more generic way of controlling it would be good. > > > I looked at the proposed patch from Rajat > > > (https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/22/967) - it seems like a good solution to > > > me. > > > We can help with testing that on our platforms if that would be useful. > > > > Thanks you, just so that you know, the latest patchset is at: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/12/20/794 > > > > It would be great to get some additional testing if possible. I can > > send a sample ACPI (for our platform) in case it helps. > > > Sounds good - we'll definitely try this out and see how it goes. I suspect > we'll have some questions once we try it out and get more familiar. > > > > > > > I need to understand how we connect that implementation with the ACPI > > > controls we have (as I believe what we have are thinkpad specific and not > > > to > > > a drm spec; we need to confirm that). We also have the ACPI events that > > > notify if ePrivacy was changed by the hotkeys and that seems like > > > something > > > that should be done in thinkpad_acpi.c and not the drm code. > > > > > > Not sure if the two need to be connected somehow (or if handling the > > > event is actually not important and polling is acceptable)? > > > > So there was some brief discussion about this on my patches - but > > atleast on the platforms I have seen, there was no way to change the > > privacy screen out of software / kernel control. Essentially, if there > > are hotkeys, they would send an input event to the kernel, who'd send > > them to userspace, who'd use the DRM method to toggle the privacy > > screen. Thus the current version of the patch only supports > > controlling the privacy screen via set() method. The get() method just > > returns the cached value.I hope that works for you. > > > OK - on the thinkpads we have function+D as a 'hotkey' to control the > feature...and my understanding is that bypasses everything and goes straight > to the firmware. > > The changes Nitin had been working on in thinkpad_acpi.c was to make this > more Linux and friendly - provide a sysfs hook for user space to connect to > with the aim of allowing it to be configured from user space and have on > screen display when it was triggered etc. > > I'm personally not sure yet how this ties up with the DRM method - more > digging required. I'm intrigued to see if it works on our systems (sadly I > don't have anything with that feature available on my desk right now...I need > to get my hands on one) Just FYI, Here is the brief discussion we had about an interrupt mechanism to support a (hardware based) "kill switch" for the privacy screen. https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/10/25/992 Thanks, Rajat > > Thanks > Mark _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
