Hi 2021. január 1., péntek 17:08 keltezéssel, Jiaxun Yang írta: > [...] > > > @@ -1006,6 +1018,10 @@ static int ideapad_acpi_add(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > if (!priv->has_hw_rfkill_switch) > > > write_ec_cmd(priv->adev->handle, VPCCMD_W_RF, 1); > > > > > > + /* The same for Touchpad */ > > > + if (!priv->has_touchpad_switch) > > > + write_ec_cmd(priv->adev->handle, VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD, 1); > > > + > > > > Shouldn't it be the other way around: `if (priv->has_touchpad_switch)`? > > It is to prevent accidentally disable touchpad on machines that do have EC switch, > so it's intentional. > [...] Sorry, but the explanation not fully clear to me. The commit message seems to indicate that some models "do not use EC to switch touchpad", and I take that means that reading from VPCCMD_R_TOUCHPAD will not reflect the actual state of the touchpad and writing to VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD will not change the state of the touchpad. But then why do you still write to VPCCMD_W_TOUCHPAD on devices where supposedly this does not have any effect (at least not the desired one)? And the part of the code I made my comment about only runs on machines on which the touchpad supposedly cannot be controlled by the EC. What am I missing? And there is the other problem: on some machines, this patch removes working functionality. Regards, Barnabás Pőcze
