Hi Yan, On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 11:56:59AM +0800, Yan Li wrote: > This is for kernel bug #18122 and MeeGo bug #4807. > > Current code detects Clickpad by checking the 8 and 20 bits of 0x0c > cap. However, the code returns true if either of those bits is 1, > while it should only return true when both are 1. This has lead to the > touchpad on Lenovo S10-3t be mistakenly recognized as Clickpad and its > BTN_LEFT and BTN_RIGHT blocked. > > So far we've found that the S10-3ts are shipped with two slightly > different models of touchpads, of which the 0x0c cap is either > 0x5a0400 or 0x4a0500. They are not Clickpad and return BTN_LEFT and > BTN_RIGHT normally. Hmm, this is weird. According to my data: >> Treat it as a two-bit field. >> 0x00 == not a clickpad >> 0x01 == 1 button clickpad >> 0x02 == 2 button clickpad >> 0x03 == reserved Moreover, Takashi's HP returns 0x5a 0x04 0x00 in response to 0x0c query and _is_ a clickpad. Christopher, was there any more updates to the protocol by any chance? > > This patch fixed this issue by checking both sign bits are 1. Tested > on my S10-3t and worked well. > > Signed-off-by: Yan Li <yan.i.li@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.h | 6 +++++- > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.h b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.h > index 613a365..0c1083c 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.h > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.h > @@ -51,7 +51,11 @@ > #define SYN_EXT_CAP_REQUESTS(c) (((c) & 0x700000) >> 20) > #define SYN_CAP_MULTI_BUTTON_NO(ec) (((ec) & 0x00f000) >> 12) > #define SYN_CAP_PRODUCT_ID(ec) (((ec) & 0xff0000) >> 16) > -#define SYN_CAP_CLICKPAD(ex0c) ((ex0c) & 0x100100) > +/* Synaptics' ClickPad has both 8th and 20th bits set in the 0x0c > + * cap. Other models (like those shipped with Lenovo S10-3t) may have > + * either one of them set but not both, and they are *not* ClickPad > + * although they look similar. */ > +#define SYN_CAP_CLICKPAD(ex0c) ((ex0c) & 0x100100 == 0x100100) In C comparison operators have higher precedence than bitwise ones. Your expression reduces to ((ex0c) & 1) which is not correct. The proper expression would be: #define SYN_CAP_CLICKPAD(ex0c) (((ex0c) & 0x100100) == 0x100100) but it really contradicts the data I have... Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
