Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1403748 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-19 15:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-19 22:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-23 23:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-24 00:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 00:30 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 01:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 05:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 09:10 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-24 22:00 +0200
                    [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> - 2016-05-24 23:00 +0200
                      Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-25 22:30 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 22:40 +0200
                          Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com> - 2016-05-25 22:50 +0200
                            Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is  suspended Darren Hart <dvhart@infradead.org> - 2016-05-25 23:30 +0200

#1403748 — Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

On Monday 25 April 2016 22:06:11 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> 2016-04-18 14:35 GMT+02:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > On Tuesday 29 March 2016 15:11:35 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >> On Monday, March 28, 2016 10:33:09 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:24:56PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> > > 2016-03-24 10:39 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> >> > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 16:13:34 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> > > >> 2016-03-21 13:17 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >> > On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >> > > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> >> > > >> >> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> >> > > >> >> +{
> >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> > > >> >> +}
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> >> > > >> >> +{
> >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +     return 0;
> >> > > >> >> +}
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> >> > > >> >> +{
> >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> >> > > >> >> +     acpi_status status;
> >> > > >> >> +
> >> > > >> >> +     /*
> >> > > >> >> +      * Clear the flag only after we received the extra
> >> > > >> >> +      * ACPI notification.
> >> > > >> >> +      */
> >> > > >> >> +     status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> >> > > >> >> +                      rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> >> > > >> >> +     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> >> > > >> >> +             rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag,
> >> > > >> > right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails,
> >> > > >> > then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing
> >> > > >> > just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I
> >> > > >> > think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> > Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was
> >> > > >> > reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"?
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> acpi_os_execute doesn't wait for the callback to be executed, so
> >> > > >> I can't clear the flag from rbtn_resume.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > acpi_os_execute calls callback asynchronously later? Or what exactly do it?
> >> > >
> >> > > In this case, it adds the callback to the kacpi_notify_wq workqueue
> >> > > for deferred execution.
> >> >
> >> > +Rafael for context/advice on the use of acpi_os_execute here.
> >> >
> >> > This is true, but a quick scan through that call path doesn't tell me why we
> >> > would need to call it here instead of just setting rbtn_data->suspended = false.
> >> > The comment suggests waiting for the event, but is that what this is doing? It
> >> > appears to me to be immediately scheduling the function to a work queue, not
> >> > waiting for the event notifier.
> >>
> >> I think this is supposed to work as a barrier.  That is, it will only run after
> >> all events in the queue have been processed.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Rafael
> >>
> >
> > Darren, Gabriele, what is state of this patch? Bug is not still fixed,
> > right?
> 
> Yes, the bug is still there and this patch fixes it.
> 
> Just to make it clear, we need the barrier. Andrei could reproduce
> the bug without it [1], but not with it, as he confirmed in this
> thread [2].
> 
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8001
> [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8937

Ok, so it means that somebody (who understand ACPI) should review code
and accept it or show what is needed to fix. Plus maybe adds more
comments how that "barrier" works as I was first confused...

Darren, Rafael, can you do review of this patch?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1403948

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:30:32PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 25 April 2016 22:06:11 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > 2016-04-18 14:35 GMT+02:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > > On Tuesday 29 March 2016 15:11:35 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Monday, March 28, 2016 10:33:09 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:24:56PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > 2016-03-24 10:39 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 16:13:34 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > >> 2016-03-21 13:17 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > >> > On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > >> > > >> >> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> > >> > > >> >> +}
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     return 0;
> > >> > > >> >> +}
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > >> > > >> >> +     acpi_status status;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     /*
> > >> > > >> >> +      * Clear the flag only after we received the extra
> > >> > > >> >> +      * ACPI notification.
> > >> > > >> >> +      */
> > >> > > >> >> +     status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> > >> > > >> >> +                      rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> > >> > > >> >> +     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > >> > > >> >> +             rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag,
> > >> > > >> > right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails,
> > >> > > >> > then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing
> > >> > > >> > just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I
> > >> > > >> > think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was
> > >> > > >> > reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> acpi_os_execute doesn't wait for the callback to be executed, so
> > >> > > >> I can't clear the flag from rbtn_resume.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > acpi_os_execute calls callback asynchronously later? Or what exactly do it?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In this case, it adds the callback to the kacpi_notify_wq workqueue
> > >> > > for deferred execution.
> > >> >
> > >> > +Rafael for context/advice on the use of acpi_os_execute here.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is true, but a quick scan through that call path doesn't tell me why we
> > >> > would need to call it here instead of just setting rbtn_data->suspended = false.
> > >> > The comment suggests waiting for the event, but is that what this is doing? It
> > >> > appears to me to be immediately scheduling the function to a work queue, not
> > >> > waiting for the event notifier.
> > >>
> > >> I think this is supposed to work as a barrier.  That is, it will only run after
> > >> all events in the queue have been processed.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Rafael
> > >>
> > >
> > > Darren, Gabriele, what is state of this patch? Bug is not still fixed,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Yes, the bug is still there and this patch fixes it.
> > 
> > Just to make it clear, we need the barrier. Andrei could reproduce
> > the bug without it [1], but not with it, as he confirmed in this
> > thread [2].
> > 
> > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8001
> > [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8937
> 
> Ok, so it means that somebody (who understand ACPI) should review code
> and accept it or show what is needed to fix. Plus maybe adds more
> comments how that "barrier" works as I was first confused...
> 
> Darren, Rafael, can you do review of this patch?
> 

Yes, working toward it.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405650

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:30:32PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 25 April 2016 22:06:11 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > 2016-04-18 14:35 GMT+02:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > > On Tuesday 29 March 2016 15:11:35 Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >> On Monday, March 28, 2016 10:33:09 AM Darren Hart wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:24:56PM +0100, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > 2016-03-24 10:39 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > > On Monday 21 March 2016 16:13:34 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > >> 2016-03-21 13:17 GMT+01:00 Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com>:
> > >> > > >> > On Friday 18 March 2016 23:44:23 Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > >> > > >> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > >> > > >> >> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> > >> > > >> >> +}
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     return 0;
> > >> > > >> >> +}
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> > >> > > >> >> +{
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > >> > > >> >> +     struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > >> > > >> >> +     acpi_status status;
> > >> > > >> >> +
> > >> > > >> >> +     /*
> > >> > > >> >> +      * Clear the flag only after we received the extra
> > >> > > >> >> +      * ACPI notification.
> > >> > > >> >> +      */
> > >> > > >> >> +     status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> > >> > > >> >> +                      rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> > >> > > >> >> +     if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > >> > > >> >> +             rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > I case when acpi_os_execute success it calls rbtn_acpi_clear_flag,
> > >> > > >> > right? And that will set suspended to false. When acpi_os_execute fails,
> > >> > > >> > then it set suspended too to false... Then whole acpi_os_execute doing
> > >> > > >> > just "barrier" after which suspended flag can be set to false. So I
> > >> > > >> > think rbtn_acpi_clear_flag function is not needed here.
> > >> > > >> >
> > >> > > >> > Cannot you pass NULL or empty function pointer as callback? Or what was
> > >> > > >> > reason to do that flag clearing at "two places"?
> > >> > > >>
> > >> > > >> acpi_os_execute doesn't wait for the callback to be executed, so
> > >> > > >> I can't clear the flag from rbtn_resume.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > acpi_os_execute calls callback asynchronously later? Or what exactly do it?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In this case, it adds the callback to the kacpi_notify_wq workqueue
> > >> > > for deferred execution.
> > >> >
> > >> > +Rafael for context/advice on the use of acpi_os_execute here.
> > >> >
> > >> > This is true, but a quick scan through that call path doesn't tell me why we
> > >> > would need to call it here instead of just setting rbtn_data->suspended = false.
> > >> > The comment suggests waiting for the event, but is that what this is doing? It
> > >> > appears to me to be immediately scheduling the function to a work queue, not
> > >> > waiting for the event notifier.
> > >>
> > >> I think this is supposed to work as a barrier.  That is, it will only run after
> > >> all events in the queue have been processed.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure if that's necessary, though.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Rafael
> > >>
> > >
> > > Darren, Gabriele, what is state of this patch? Bug is not still fixed,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Yes, the bug is still there and this patch fixes it.
> > 
> > Just to make it clear, we need the barrier. Andrei could reproduce
> > the bug without it [1], but not with it, as he confirmed in this
> > thread [2].
> > 
> > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8001
> > [2] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.platform.x86.devel/8937
> 
> Ok, so it means that somebody (who understand ACPI) should review code
> and accept it or show what is needed to fix. Plus maybe adds more
> comments how that "barrier" works as I was first confused...
> 
> Darren, Rafael, can you do review of this patch?
> 

Pali and Gabriele have responded to all questions raised. I have some
reservations that this solution is still a bit racy, but it does fix the problem
for the affected users.

I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405688 — Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
> I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.

Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more clear 
what code is doing.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405697

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06:03AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
> > I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more clear 
> what code is doing.

I thought I had your approval on this one Pali. Apologies if that was not the
case. Did I miss a change request from you?

If so, please point me at it, and I'll dequeue this one and wait for an updated
one.


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405700 — Re: [PATCH v3] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Tuesday 24 May 2016 00:17:15 Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06:03AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
> > > I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.
> > 
> > Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more
> > clear what code is doing.
> 
> I thought I had your approval on this one Pali. Apologies if that was
> not the case. Did I miss a change request from you?
> 
> If so, please point me at it, and I'll dequeue this one and wait for
> an updated one.

I just wanted to review that code from somebody else and decide if 
accept it or not. Because I was not sure if it is OK...

But there was no objection, so patch is OK.

And I pointed that patch could have better comments to describe what it 
is doing as at first time I was confused.

So I believe that you can update patch in your queue with new version 
which just change comments in source code (without functional changes).

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405708

On 24/05/2016 00:22, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2016 00:17:15 Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06:03AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>> On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.
>>>
>>> Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more
>>> clear what code is doing.
>>
>> I thought I had your approval on this one Pali. Apologies if that was
>> not the case. Did I miss a change request from you?
>>
>> If so, please point me at it, and I'll dequeue this one and wait for
>> an updated one.
> 
> I just wanted to review that code from somebody else and decide if 
> accept it or not. Because I was not sure if it is OK...
> 
> But there was no objection, so patch is OK.
> 
> And I pointed that patch could have better comments to describe what it 
> is doing as at first time I was confused.
> 
> So I believe that you can update patch in your queue with new version 
> which just change comments in source code (without functional changes).
> 

Something such as the following?
Feel free to reword the comments if you have something better in mind.

---
 drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
index 331d63c..e0208ba 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct rbtn_data {
 	enum rbtn_type type;
 	struct rfkill *rfkill;
 	struct input_dev *input_dev;
+	bool suspended;
 };
 
 
@@ -235,9 +236,55 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id rbtn_ids[] = {
 	{ "", 0 },
 };
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
+{
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
+
+	rbtn_data->suspended = false;
+}
+
+static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
+
+	rbtn_data->suspended = true;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
+	acpi_status status;
+
+	/*
+	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes autonomously send an ACPI notification
+	 * that triggers an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it,
+	 * we use a flag that we set at suspend and clear once we have
+	 * received the extra notification. Since ACPI notifications are
+	 * delivered asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the
+	 * workqueue used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
+	 * to guarantee that the flag is cleared only after we received the
+	 * extra notification, if any.
+	 */
+	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
+			 rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+		rbtn_data->suspended = false;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
+static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rbtn_pm_ops, rbtn_suspend, rbtn_resume);
+
 static struct acpi_driver rbtn_driver = {
 	.name = "dell-rbtn",
 	.ids = rbtn_ids,
+	.drv.pm = &rbtn_pm_ops,
 	.ops = {
 		.add = rbtn_add,
 		.remove = rbtn_remove,
@@ -399,6 +446,15 @@ static void rbtn_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
 	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = device->driver_data;
 
+	/*
+	 * Some BIOSes send autonomously a notification at resume.
+	 * Ignore it to prevent unwanted input events.
+	 */
+	if (rbtn_data->suspended) {
+		dev_dbg(&device->dev, "ACPI notification ignored\n");
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (event != 0x80) {
 		dev_info(&device->dev, "Received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
 			 event);
-- 
2.8.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405817

24.05.2016 02:03, Gabriele Mazzotta пишет:
> On 24/05/2016 00:22, Pali Rohár wrote:
>> On Tuesday 24 May 2016 00:17:15 Darren Hart wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06:03AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
>>>> On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more
>>>> clear what code is doing.
>>>
>>> I thought I had your approval on this one Pali. Apologies if that was
>>> not the case. Did I miss a change request from you?
>>>
>>> If so, please point me at it, and I'll dequeue this one and wait for
>>> an updated one.
>>
>> I just wanted to review that code from somebody else and decide if 
>> accept it or not. Because I was not sure if it is OK...
>>
>> But there was no objection, so patch is OK.
>>
>> And I pointed that patch could have better comments to describe what it 
>> is doing as at first time I was confused.
>>
>> So I believe that you can update patch in your queue with new version 
>> which just change comments in source code (without functional changes).
>>
> 
> Something such as the following?
> Feel free to reword the comments if you have something better in mind.
> 
> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> index 331d63c..e0208ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct rbtn_data {
>  	enum rbtn_type type;
>  	struct rfkill *rfkill;
>  	struct input_dev *input_dev;
> +	bool suspended;
>  };
>  
>  
> @@ -235,9 +236,55 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id rbtn_ids[] = {
>  	{ "", 0 },
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> +{
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> +
> +	rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> +}
> +
> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +
> +	rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes autonomously send an ACPI notification
> +	 * that triggers an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it,
> +	 * we use a flag that we set at suspend and clear once we have
> +	 * received the extra notification. Since ACPI notifications are
> +	 * delivered asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the
> +	 * workqueue used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
> +	 * to guarantee that the flag is cleared only after we received the
> +	 * extra notification, if any.
> +	 */

"guarantee" is rather strong word here. We really do not know anything
how and when these notifications are generated by firmware, so can only
hope. But otherwise this explains what this patch intends to do (so that
even me finally understood it :)

> +	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> +			 rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> +		rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rbtn_pm_ops, rbtn_suspend, rbtn_resume);
> +
>  static struct acpi_driver rbtn_driver = {
>  	.name = "dell-rbtn",
>  	.ids = rbtn_ids,
> +	.drv.pm = &rbtn_pm_ops,
>  	.ops = {
>  		.add = rbtn_add,
>  		.remove = rbtn_remove,
> @@ -399,6 +446,15 @@ static void rbtn_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
>  {
>  	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = device->driver_data;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Some BIOSes send autonomously a notification at resume.
> +	 * Ignore it to prevent unwanted input events.
> +	 */
> +	if (rbtn_data->suspended) {
> +		dev_dbg(&device->dev, "ACPI notification ignored\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (event != 0x80) {
>  		dev_info(&device->dev, "Received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
>  			 event);
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1405894

On Tuesday 24 May 2016 06:48:41 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> 24.05.2016 02:03, Gabriele Mazzotta пишет:
> > On 24/05/2016 00:22, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 24 May 2016 00:17:15 Darren Hart wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:06:03AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> >>>> On Monday 23 May 2016 23:26:55 Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>>> I've queued this. Thanks for your patience.
> >>>>
> >>>> Ok, In that case I would update comments in patch to try it more
> >>>> clear what code is doing.
> >>>
> >>> I thought I had your approval on this one Pali. Apologies if that was
> >>> not the case. Did I miss a change request from you?
> >>>
> >>> If so, please point me at it, and I'll dequeue this one and wait for
> >>> an updated one.
> >>
> >> I just wanted to review that code from somebody else and decide if 
> >> accept it or not. Because I was not sure if it is OK...
> >>
> >> But there was no objection, so patch is OK.
> >>
> >> And I pointed that patch could have better comments to describe what it 
> >> is doing as at first time I was confused.
> >>
> >> So I believe that you can update patch in your queue with new version 
> >> which just change comments in source code (without functional changes).
> >>
> > 
> > Something such as the following?
> > Feel free to reword the comments if you have something better in mind.
> > 
> > ---
> >  drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> > index 331d63c..e0208ba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct rbtn_data {
> >  	enum rbtn_type type;
> >  	struct rfkill *rfkill;
> >  	struct input_dev *input_dev;
> > +	bool suspended;
> >  };
> >  
> >  
> > @@ -235,9 +236,55 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id rbtn_ids[] = {
> >  	{ "", 0 },
> >  };
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)

I would rename this function to rbtn_clear_suspended_flag.

> > +{
> > +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> > +
> > +	rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > +
> > +	rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> > +{
> > +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> > +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> > +	acpi_status status;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes autonomously send an ACPI notification
> > +	 * that triggers an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it,
> > +	 * we use a flag that we set at suspend and clear once we have
> > +	 * received the extra notification. Since ACPI notifications are
> > +	 * delivered asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the
> > +	 * workqueue used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
> > +	 * to guarantee that the flag is cleared only after we received the
> > +	 * extra notification, if any.
> > +	 */
> 
> "guarantee" is rather strong word here. We really do not know anything
> how and when these notifications are generated by firmware, so can only
> hope. But otherwise this explains what this patch intends to do (so that
> even me finally understood it :)

Yes, thats better.

> > +	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> > +			 rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > +		rbtn_data->suspended = false;

And here rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(rbtn_data) call instead direct
assignment.

> > +
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rbtn_pm_ops, rbtn_suspend, rbtn_resume);
> > +
> >  static struct acpi_driver rbtn_driver = {
> >  	.name = "dell-rbtn",
> >  	.ids = rbtn_ids,
> > +	.drv.pm = &rbtn_pm_ops,
> >  	.ops = {
> >  		.add = rbtn_add,
> >  		.remove = rbtn_remove,
> > @@ -399,6 +446,15 @@ static void rbtn_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> >  {
> >  	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = device->driver_data;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Some BIOSes send autonomously a notification at resume.
> > +	 * Ignore it to prevent unwanted input events.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (rbtn_data->suspended) {
> > +		dev_dbg(&device->dev, "ACPI notification ignored\n");
> > +		return;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	if (event != 0x80) {
> >  		dev_info(&device->dev, "Received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
> >  			 event);
> > 
> 

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1406419

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:09:38AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 May 2016 06:48:41 Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > 24.05.2016 02:03, Gabriele Mazzotta пишет:
> > > On 24/05/2016 00:22, Pali Rohár wrote:

...

> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> > > +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context)
> 
> I would rename this function to rbtn_clear_suspended_flag.
> 

...

> > > +	/*
> > > +	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes autonomously send an ACPI notification

You can drop "autonomously", it reads a bit awkwardly, and doesn't add any
information.

> > > +	 * that triggers an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it,
> > > +	 * we use a flag that we set at suspend and clear once we have
> > > +	 * received the extra notification. Since ACPI notifications are
> > > +	 * delivered asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the
> > > +	 * workqueue used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
> > > +	 * to guarantee that the flag is cleared only after we received the
> > > +	 * extra notification, if any.
> > > +	 */
> > 
> > "guarantee" is rather strong word here. We really do not know anything
> > how and when these notifications are generated by firmware, so can only
> > hope. But otherwise this explains what this patch intends to do (so that
> > even me finally understood it :)
> 
> Yes, thats better.
> 
> > > +	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> > > +			 rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data);
> > > +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> > > +		rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> 
> And here rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(rbtn_data) call instead direct
> assignment.
> 

I'm dropping this from the queue, and awaiting an updated version with the
requested changes (these from Pali, and the issue raised about "guarantee" being
too strong).

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1406449 — [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

Some BIOSes unconditionally send an ACPI notification to RBTN when the
system is resuming from suspend. This makes dell-rbtn send an input
event to userspace as if a function key was pressed. Prevent this by
ignoring all the notifications received while the device is suspended.

Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106031
Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
index 331d63c..dd22fb9 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct rbtn_data {
 	enum rbtn_type type;
 	struct rfkill *rfkill;
 	struct input_dev *input_dev;
+	bool suspended;
 };
 
 
@@ -235,9 +236,55 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id rbtn_ids[] = {
 	{ "", 0 },
 };
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(void *context)
+{
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
+
+	rbtn_data->suspended = false;
+}
+
+static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
+
+	rbtn_data->suspended = true;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
+{
+	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
+	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
+	acpi_status status;
+
+	/*
+	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes send an ACPI notification thet triggers
+	 * an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it, we use a flag
+	 * that we set at suspend and clear once we have received the extra
+	 * ACPI notification. Since ACPI notifications are delivered
+	 * asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the workqueue
+	 * used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
+	 * to have the flag cleared only after we received the extra
+	 * notification, if any.
+	 */
+	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
+			 rbtn_clear_suspended_flag, rbtn_data);
+	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
+		rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(rbtn_data);
+
+	return 0;
+}
+#endif
+
+static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rbtn_pm_ops, rbtn_suspend, rbtn_resume);
+
 static struct acpi_driver rbtn_driver = {
 	.name = "dell-rbtn",
 	.ids = rbtn_ids,
+	.drv.pm = &rbtn_pm_ops,
 	.ops = {
 		.add = rbtn_add,
 		.remove = rbtn_remove,
@@ -399,6 +446,15 @@ static void rbtn_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
 {
 	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = device->driver_data;
 
+	/*
+	 * Some BIOSes send a notification at resume.
+	 * Ignore it to prevent unwanted input events.
+	 */
+	if (rbtn_data->suspended) {
+		dev_dbg(&device->dev, "ACPI notification ignored\n");
+		return;
+	}
+
 	if (event != 0x80) {
 		dev_info(&device->dev, "Received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
 			 event);
-- 
2.8.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1407195 — Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> Some BIOSes unconditionally send an ACPI notification to RBTN when the
> system is resuming from suspend. This makes dell-rbtn send an input
> event to userspace as if a function key was pressed. Prevent this by
> ignoring all the notifications received while the device is suspended.
> 
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106031
> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>

Gabriele, please include all the maintainers on Cc (Pali was missing).

Pali, can I have your Reviewed-by?

> ---
>  drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> index 331d63c..dd22fb9 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/dell-rbtn.c
> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ struct rbtn_data {
>  	enum rbtn_type type;
>  	struct rfkill *rfkill;
>  	struct input_dev *input_dev;
> +	bool suspended;
>  };
>  
>  
> @@ -235,9 +236,55 @@ static const struct acpi_device_id rbtn_ids[] = {
>  	{ "", 0 },
>  };
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(void *context)
> +{
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = context;
> +
> +	rbtn_data->suspended = false;
> +}
> +
> +static int rbtn_suspend(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +
> +	rbtn_data->suspended = true;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int rbtn_resume(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct acpi_device *device = to_acpi_device(dev);
> +	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = acpi_driver_data(device);
> +	acpi_status status;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Upon resume, some BIOSes send an ACPI notification thet triggers
> +	 * an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it, we use a flag
> +	 * that we set at suspend and clear once we have received the extra
> +	 * ACPI notification. Since ACPI notifications are delivered
> +	 * asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the workqueue
> +	 * used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough
> +	 * to have the flag cleared only after we received the extra
> +	 * notification, if any.
> +	 */
> +	status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER,
> +			 rbtn_clear_suspended_flag, rbtn_data);
> +	if (ACPI_FAILURE(status))
> +		rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(rbtn_data);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(rbtn_pm_ops, rbtn_suspend, rbtn_resume);
> +
>  static struct acpi_driver rbtn_driver = {
>  	.name = "dell-rbtn",
>  	.ids = rbtn_ids,
> +	.drv.pm = &rbtn_pm_ops,
>  	.ops = {
>  		.add = rbtn_add,
>  		.remove = rbtn_remove,
> @@ -399,6 +446,15 @@ static void rbtn_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
>  {
>  	struct rbtn_data *rbtn_data = device->driver_data;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Some BIOSes send a notification at resume.
> +	 * Ignore it to prevent unwanted input events.
> +	 */
> +	if (rbtn_data->suspended) {
> +		dev_dbg(&device->dev, "ACPI notification ignored\n");
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
>  	if (event != 0x80) {
>  		dev_info(&device->dev, "Received unknown event (0x%x)\n",
>  			 event);
> -- 
> 2.8.1
> 
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1407197 — Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Wednesday 25 May 2016 22:28:47 Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> > Some BIOSes unconditionally send an ACPI notification to RBTN when
> > the system is resuming from suspend. This makes dell-rbtn send an
> > input event to userspace as if a function key was pressed. Prevent
> > this by ignoring all the notifications received while the device
> > is suspended.
> > 
> > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106031
> > Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
> 
> Gabriele, please include all the maintainers on Cc (Pali was
> missing).

Hehe, currently I started git send-email with my changes for v4 :D
So doing CTRL+C in terminal...

> Pali, can I have your Reviewed-by?

Yes as my patch differs only in two words (in comments) :-)

Anyway, there is missing Andrei's tested-by (from v2 version).

Maybe also this should go to stable tree?

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1407202 — Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

On 25/05/2016 22:36, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 May 2016 22:28:47 Darren Hart wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
>>> Some BIOSes unconditionally send an ACPI notification to RBTN when
>>> the system is resuming from suspend. This makes dell-rbtn send an
>>> input event to userspace as if a function key was pressed. Prevent
>>> this by ignoring all the notifications received while the device
>>> is suspended.
>>>
>>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106031
>>> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
>>
>> Gabriele, please include all the maintainers on Cc (Pali was
>> missing).
> 
> Hehe, currently I started git send-email with my changes for v4 :D
> So doing CTRL+C in terminal...
> 
>> Pali, can I have your Reviewed-by?
> 
> Yes as my patch differs only in two words (in comments) :-)
> 
> Anyway, there is missing Andrei's tested-by (from v2 version).

Sorry, I think this was not the first time I excluded Pali's address...

Anyway, there's also Alex's tested-by from v2, which is basically
the same as v4.

> Maybe also this should go to stable tree?
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1407225 — Re: [PATCH v4] dell-rbtn: Ignore ACPI notifications if device is suspended

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:47:03PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> On 25/05/2016 22:36, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 May 2016 22:28:47 Darren Hart wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:53:08PM +0200, Gabriele Mazzotta wrote:
> >>> Some BIOSes unconditionally send an ACPI notification to RBTN when
> >>> the system is resuming from suspend. This makes dell-rbtn send an
> >>> input event to userspace as if a function key was pressed. Prevent
> >>> this by ignoring all the notifications received while the device
> >>> is suspended.
> >>>
> >>> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=106031
> >>> Signed-off-by: Gabriele Mazzotta <gabriele.mzt@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> Gabriele, please include all the maintainers on Cc (Pali was
> >> missing).
> > 
> > Hehe, currently I started git send-email with my changes for v4 :D
> > So doing CTRL+C in terminal...
> > 
> >> Pali, can I have your Reviewed-by?
> > 
> > Yes as my patch differs only in two words (in comments) :-)
> > 
> > Anyway, there is missing Andrei's tested-by (from v2 version).
> 
> Sorry, I think this was not the first time I excluded Pali's address...
> 
> Anyway, there's also Alex's tested-by from v2, which is basically
> the same as v4.
> 
> > Maybe also this should go to stable tree?
> > 
> 

Added Pali, Stable, and Alex. Queued for 4.7, thanks.


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web