Hi Hans,
W dniu 12.06.2020 o 10:30, Hans de Goede pisze:
Hi,
On 6/10/20 3:41 PM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
Hi Hans,
W dniu 10.06.2020 o 15:21, Hans de Goede pisze:
Hi,
On 6/10/20 3:12 PM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
Hi All,
W dniu 10.06.2020 o 12:38, Rafael J. Wysocki pisze:
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 11:50 AM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi All,
On 6/8/20 1:22 PM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
This is a quick respin of v3, with just two small changes, please see
the changelog below.
Userspace might want to implement a policy to temporarily disregard input
from certain devices.
An example use case is a convertible laptop, whose keyboard can be folded
under the screen to create tablet-like experience. The user then must hold
the laptop in such a way that it is difficult to avoid pressing the keyboard
keys. It is therefore desirable to temporarily disregard input from the
keyboard, until it is folded back. This obviously is a policy which should
be kept out of the kernel, but the kernel must provide suitable means to
implement such a policy.
First of all sorry to start a somewhat new discussion about this
while this patch set is also somewhat far along in the review process,
but I believe what I discuss below needs to be taken into account.
Yesterday I have been looking into why an Asus T101HA would not stay
suspended when the LID is closed. The cause is that the USB HID multi-touch
touchpad in the base of the device starts sending events when the screen
gets close to the touchpad (so when the LID is fully closed) and these
events are causing a wakeup from suspend. HID multi-touch devices
do have a way to tell them to fully stop sending events, also disabling
the USB remote wakeup the device is doing. The question is when to tell
it to not send events though ...
So now I've been thinking about how to fix this and I believe that there
is some interaction between this problem and this patch-set.
The problem I'm seeing on the T101HA is about wakeups, so the question
which I want to discuss is:
1. How does inhibiting interact with enabling /
disabling the device as a wakeup source ?
2. Since we have now made inhibiting equal open/close how does open/close
interact with a device being a wakeup source ?
And my own initial (to be discussed) answers to these questions:
1. It seems to me that when a device is inhibited it should not be a
wakeup source, so where possible a input-device-driver should disable
a device's wakeup capabilities on suspend if inhibited
If "inhibit" means "do not generate any events going forward", then
this must also cover wakeup events, so I agree.
I agree, too.
2. This one is trickier I don't think we have really clearly specified
any behavior here. The default behavior of most drivers seems to be
using something like this in their suspend callback:
if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
enable_irq_wake(data->irq);
else if (input->users)
foo_stop_receiving_events(data);
Since this is what most drivers seem to do I believe we should keep
this as is and that we should just clearly document that if the
input_device has users (has been opened) or not does not matter
for its wakeup behavior.
Combining these 2 answers leads to this new pseudo code template
for an input-device's suspend method:
/*
* If inhibited we have already disabled events and
* we do NOT want to setup the device as wake source.
*/
if (input->inhibited)
return 0;
Right, if a device is inhibited it shouldn't become a wakeup source,
because that would contradict the purpose of being inhibited.
Ack. Note I do think that we need to document this (and more
in general the answer to both questions from above) clearly so
that going forward if there are any questions about how this is
supposed to work we can just point to the docs.
Can you do a follow-up patch, or include a patch in your next
version which documents this (once we agree on what "this"
exactly is) ?
Sure I can. Just need to know when "this" becomes stable enough ;)
If this series otherwise looks mature enough I would opt for a
follow-up patch.
FWIW after my flip-flop to agreeing with Dmitry that the 2
(inhibit vs wakeup) should be completely orthogonal this new
policy is stable/mature from my pov (and consistent with how
we handle wakeup vs input_dev->users).
I still think it would be good to do a follow-up documentation
patch documenting that these (and esp. inhibit) are orthogonal.
This will mean for example that if a device is inhibit but
still wakeup enabled and the device's close method silences
the devices, that it needs to be unsilenced in suspend.
This might be worth mentioning in the docs even though
drivers which silence the device on close should already
unsilence the device on suspend when it is wakeup-enabled.
Note maybe we should give it a couple of days for others to
give their opinion before you submit the follow-up documentation
patch.
True. I will send something after the weekend.
Andrzej
