[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1700343.1Fm4iKlbcW@aspire.rjw.lan>
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 00:20:22 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@...l.com>,
AceLan Kao <acelan.kao@...onical.com>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-vbtn: match power button on press rather than release
On Saturday, August 5, 2017 10:57:53 PM CEST Darren Hart wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:30:20AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, August 4, 2017 7:29:53 PM CEST Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:00:06PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote:
> > > > This fixes a problem where the system gets stuck in a loop
> > > > unable to wakeup via power button in s2idle.
> > > >
> > > > The problem happens because:
> > > > - press power button:
> > > > - system emits 0xc0 (power press), event ignored
> > > > - system emits 0xc1 (power release), event processed,
> > > > emited as KEY_POWER
> > > > - set wakeup_mode to true
> > > > - system goes to s2idle
> > > > - press power button
> > > > - system emits 0xc0 (power press), wakeup_mode is true,
> > > > system wakes
> > > > - system emits 0xc1 (power release), event processed,
> > > > emited as KEY_POWER
> > > > - system goes to s2idle again
> > > >
> > > > To avoid this situation, process the presses (which matches what
> > > > intel-hid does too).
> > > >
> > > > Verified on an Dell XPS 9365
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@...l.com>
> > >
> > > This looks good to me - responding to the release is non-intuitive IMHO
> > > anyway. I'd like to see agreement from AceLan, but this should go into
> > > the 4.13 rc cycle (at rc3 currently).
> >
> > Yes, it should, and I'm not sure if the original author's opinion matters here.
> >
> > The patch makes sense to everyone involved and fixes an annoying issue, so
> > I don't see any real arguments against applying it.
> >
> > Please feel free to add my ACK to it if that helps.
>
> I always try to give those in MAINTAINERS a chance to respond, but I will queue
> this up to fixes now.
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists