[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e40f60820ad1a13b2981c65a55babd845349a751.camel@collabora.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2025 15:51:25 +0200
From: Julien Massot <julien.massot@...labora.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
<angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Cc: kernel@...labora.com, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>, Rob
Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor
Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Input: mtk-pmic-keys - MT6359 has a specific
release irq
Hi Dmitry
On Wed, 2025-08-06 at 09:49 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2025 at 10:05:21AM +0200, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> wrote:
> > Il 01/08/25 15:16, Julien Massot ha scritto:
> > > A recent commit in linux-next added support for key events.
> > > However, the key release event is not properly handled: only key
> > > press events
> > > are generated, leaving key states stuck in "pressed".
> > >
> > > This patch ensures that both key press and key release events are
> > > properly
> > > emitted by handling the release logic correctly.
> > >
> > > Note: the code was introduced in linux-next by commit
> > > bc25e6bf032e ("Input: mtk-pmic-keys - add support for MT6359 PMIC
> > > keys")
> > > and is not yet present in mainline.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Julien Massot <julien.massot@...labora.com>
> >
> > Well, you are effectively fixing the commit that you pointed out, so
> > this needs
> >
> > Fixes: bc25e6bf032e ("Input: mtk-pmic-keys - add support for MT6359
> > PMIC keys")
> >
> > and
> >
> > Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> > <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
>
> I am really interested in how exactly this was developed, tested, and
> reviewed...
>
> Thanks.
You are right, the issue comes from my side.
I prepared the patch against a slightly different tree, which led to the
discrepancy. I’ll respin it on top of the current linux-next and re-test
it properly to ensure the fix behaves as expected.
Thanks for catching this, and thanks for your time.
Julien
Powered by blists - more mailing lists