On Fri, 2010-05-07 at 13:57 -0400, Peter M. Petrakis wrote: > So where do we stand on this? Option #2 sounds like a good > thing to implement regardless of whether synaptics is the > victim device or not. Devices supported by the fall back driver > will eventually get our attention again when users wish to use > the extended features of the device. In the meanwhile, at least > they'll have a reliable, minimum set of features. > > I'm happy to continue instrumenting this mysterious synaptics > device. Just keep the patches coming. Thanks. You can wipe out this (maybe for firmware >7.5 obsolete) 0x47 check in synaptics_capability() and see if it works with synaptics driver. diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c index 026df60..6750dbb 100644 --- a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c @@ -138,7 +138,9 @@ static int synaptics_capability(struct psmouse *psmouse) return -1; priv->capabilities = (cap[0] << 16) | (cap[1] << 8) | cap[2]; priv->ext_cap = 0; - if (!SYN_CAP_VALID(priv->capabilities)) + if (!SYN_CAP_VALID(priv->capabilities) && + SYN_ID_MAJOR(priv->identity) < 7 && + SYN_ID_MINOR(priv->identity) < 5) return -1; /* -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
