On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:59 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 01/29/2015 08:50 PM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Benjamin Tissoires >> <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi Daniel, >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 3:34 AM, Daniel Martin >>> <daniel.martin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> From: Daniel Martin <consume.noise@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> If we queried min/max dimensions of x [1266..5674], y [1170..4684] we >>>> have post-2013 model and don't need to apply any quirk. >>>> >>>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91541 >>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Martin <consume.noise@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c >>>> index 37d4dff..f6c43ff 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/synaptics.c >>>> @@ -420,6 +420,11 @@ static int synaptics_quirks(struct psmouse *psmouse) >>>> struct synaptics_data *priv = psmouse->private; >>>> int i; >>>> >>>> + /* Post-2013 models expose correct dimensions. */ >>>> + if (priv->x_min == 1266 && priv->x_max == 5674 && >>>> + priv->y_min == 1170 && priv->y_max == 4684) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + >>> >>> Well, this one, I don't like it either :( >>> >>> At least, the test should be within the psmouse_matches_pnp_id() below >>> to ensure we are deciding with Lenovo devices only. >>> >>> The other concern is hardcoding these values in the code directly. >>> What if Synaptics/Lenovo decides to ship a new released model with >>> proper min_max ranges but with a different offset? >>> >>> Andrew told us that the board ID should be enough to discriminate old >>> and faulty touchpads from the new and valid touchpads. >>> >>> My concern here is that we will have to backport these changes in the >>> various stable kernel and the various distributions. And if we do not >>> end up with the right solution right now, that means that we will have >>> to do the job over and over. >>> >>> I am quite tempted to find a solution in the userspace for that fix. >>> Not sure I'll be able to find the right one right now, but it may >>> worth trying. >>> >> >> So, the user space solution seems difficult because we do not export >> either the board_id or the firmware_id. So that would required to >> update the kernel anyway, a bunch of user space tools and a hwdb... :( >> >> How about we just add an extra min/max in struct min_max_quirk, >> compare the current min/max with the 2 possible values and if there is >> a match, we do not override the values. >> This way, we keep the crap of wrong/correct min max in the small list >> of device we know are problematic, and if the new batch of E540 has a >> different correct min/max range, then we will be able to adjust it >> without breaking the other we fixed. >> >> Dmitry, Hans, any comments on this? > > I'm thinking more along the lines of adding a max_broken_board_id field > to the quirks, and if the touchpad board_id is larger then the > max_broken_board_id not use the quirk. > Yep, this was confirmed by Synaptics that the board id will be incremented only at each new board revision. So it should be safe to only check for that. Cheers, Benjamin -- 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
