Re: [PATCH] Make power-button key report the button-up event when the 5-button array does not exist

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I have a patch ready, but I don't know the underlying cause of the problem, and this is preventing from writing a meaningful commit message.


On Sun, Apr 29, 2018, at 8:45 PM, Tristian Celestin wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018, at 8:55 PM, Alex Hung wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:36 AM, Andy Shevchenko
>> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 1:25 AM, Tristian Celestin
>>> <tristiancelestin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the patch.
>>> 
>>> First of all, please, include all PDx86 maintainers to the discussion as well.
>>> Second, please, use `git send-email` tool to send patches, it avoids
>>> attachments.
> 
> Thank you for the guidance. Will do.
> 
>>>> I am running Fedora 28 and Android-x86 on a Dell Latitude 5175 tablet. The
>>>> power button functionality is driven by the intel-hid driver. I am using
>>>> kernel version 4.16.
>>>> 
>>>> Currently, the intel-hid driver does not supply a KEY_POWER up event in cases
>>>> where the platform doesn't expose the 5-button array. Without this patch, the
>>>> power button can't reliably respond when the platform is running Android.
>>>> 
>>>> When running Fedora, I can use the power button to suspend and resume the
>>>> tablet. I can initiate this suspend by short-pressing the power button for a
>>>> second, and can resume it using another short-press.
>>>> 
>>>> When running Android-x86, I can only short-press the power button once. After
>>>> the press, the button seems to no longer respond. This is problematic when
>>>> using a short-press to initiate a suspend, since a subsequent short press will
>>>> not wake the tablet.
>>>> 
>>>> I used getevent to display the KeyEvents[1] detected by Android, and a
>>>> combination of 'cat /proc/kmsg' and debug statements in the intel-hid driver
>>>> to display the events generated by the driver. I found the block in the intel-
>>>> hid driver that generates power button events for my device. On line 253 of
>>>> intel-hid.c:
>>>> 
>>>>       if (!priv->array) {
>>>>               if (event == 0xce) {
>>>>                       input_report_key(priv->input_dev, KEY_POWER, 1);
>>>>                       input_sync(priv->input_dev);
>>>>                       return;
>>>>               }
>>>> 
>>>>               if (event == 0xcf)
>>>>                       return;
>>>> }
>> 
>> Thanks for the work. This somehow sounds similar to Wacom MobileStudio
>> Pro that we worked on before. A quirk was added to enable 5 button
>> array, and the commit is c454a99d4ce1cebb.
>> 
>> Could you please try to add a DMI entry in button_array_table[] and
>> verify the power button again? If this works, we can use the DMI quirk
>> instead.
> 
> Thank you for the guidance. I added a DMI entry to button_array_table[] for the Latitude 5175, and the
> tablet now also responds to short presses while suspended.
> 
>>>> 
>>>> When I short-press the power button, intel-hid produces a KEY_POWER down
>>>> event, but doesn't produce a KEY_POWER up event when I release the power
>>>> button. Suppose intel-hid has been mapped to the input device /dev/input/
>>>> event19. Then, on Android-x86, the command "getevent -lt" produces the
>>>> following output:
>>>> 
>>>> /dev/input/event19: EV_KEY       KEY_POWER            DOWN
>>>> /dev/input/event19: EV_SYN       SYN_REPORT           00000000
>>>> 
>>>> Subsequent presses produced no output for that input device.
>>>> 
>>>> When I added a call to input_report_key(...) and input_sync(...) on the
>>>> KEY_POWER up event in the intel-hid driver, I could repeatedly short-press the
>>>> power button and have Android respond appropriately, including resuming the
>>>> device from suspend. My hunch as to why this is the case is that Android needs
>>>> a paired KEY_POWER DOWN and UP event before it will handle the press.
>>> 
>>> WRT, patch contents:
>>> - please, do a proper commit message
>>> - while it has crucial semantic mistake (missing {}) it suddenly works
>>> because nothing behind the condition you had touched
>>> - I would rather unify conditionals, though I would like to hear from
>>> Alex and Dmitry if it's fine to do what you are trying to do in the
>>> patch
>>> 
>>> --
>>> With Best Regards,
>>> Andy Shevchenko
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Alex Hung




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux