[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2306031440380.29760@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:41:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
"Peter F . Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@...il.com>,
Filipe LaĆns <lains@...eup.net>,
Nestor Lopez Casado <nlopezcasad@...itech.com>,
Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: logitech-hidpp: Handle timeout differently from
busy
On Wed, 31 May 2023, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > If an attempt at contacting a receiver or a device fails because the
> > receiver or device never responds, don't restart the communication, only
> > restart it if the receiver or device answers that it's busy, as originally
> > intended.
> >
> > This was the behaviour on communication timeout before commit 586e8fede795
> > ("HID: logitech-hidpp: Retry commands when device is busy").
> >
> > This fixes some overly long waits in a critical path on boot, when
> > checking whether the device is connected by getting its HID++ version.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bastien Nocera <hadess@...ess.net>
> > Suggested-by: Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
> > Fixes: 586e8fede795 ("HID: logitech-hidpp: Retry commands when device is busy")
> > Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217412
> > ---
> > drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > index 0fcfd85fea0f..2246044b1639 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-logitech-hidpp.c
> > @@ -314,6 +314,7 @@ static int hidpp_send_message_sync(struct hidpp_device *hidpp,
> > dbg_hid("%s:timeout waiting for response\n", __func__);
> > memset(response, 0, sizeof(struct hidpp_report));
> > ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > + goto exit;
> > }
> >
>
> I have applied this even before getting confirmation from the reporters in
> bugzilla, as it's the right thing to do anyway.
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to cure the reported issue (while reverting
586e8fede79 does): https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217523#c2
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists