[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ccae168a-4be0-f085-8d8e-03bfbd71ac8f@pobox.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2023 09:17:48 -0400
From: Mark Lord <mlord@...ox.com>
To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>, 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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] HID: logitech-hidpp: Handle timeout differently from busy
On 2023-06-03 08:41 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> 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
I wonder if this code could be re-worked to not even do this (waiting)
from the _probe() function? It ought to be able to throw it on a workqueue
or something, rather than stalling system boot for a minimum of 5-seconds
(or much longer as as-is).
--
Mark Lord
Powered by blists - more mailing lists