linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix Elan I2C touchpads in latest generation from Lenovo

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAO-hwJKenvHpOQc6vjxDq0YZesLJVu1MXPuZ-iTSLKxJEbZeAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 12 Oct 2018 21:07:21 +0200
From:   Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     廖崇榮 <kt.liao@....com.tw>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:HID CORE LAYER" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix Elan I2C touchpads in latest generation from Lenovo

On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:53 PM Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 04:24:08PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > Since v4.18, we unconditionally switch the I2C capable touchpads over I2C.
> > In the model I had (a pre-prod t480s I guess), the touchpad was behaving
> > fine.
> > However, it occurs that later production models don't expose the clickpad
> > information from I2C. The Windows driver gets all the information from PS/2
> > so we should do the same.
> >
> > The situation is even worse for the P52. Once of the query parameter function
> > fails, which means the touchpad doesn't even probe. This effectively kills
> > the touchpad, which is less than ideal.
> >
> > Dmitry, I am not sure if we should take those for stable in v4.18+.
> > I'd like to, but given the series is 5 patches, I don't know if this
> > will be acceptable.
> > We could revert in stable df077237cf55928f5 but that would mean
> > distributions will have to revert the revert if they want to provide
> > the I2C behavior.
> >
> > So, regarding stable: your call :)
>
> Heh ;) I think we have to fix it at least in 4.19 stable train. How
> about we merge it normally into 4.20, and let it cook there for a while.
> If there is no issues, then we can send it to 4.19 stable manually. How
> does this sound?
>

Sounds like a plan :)

Cheers,
Benjamin