On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 09:36:15AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 08:27:14AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > 4.1-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. > >> > > >> > ------------------ > >> > > >> > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > > >> > commit e51e38494a8ecc18650efb0c840600637891de2c upstream. > >> > > >> > Bit 2 of the mode byte has dual meaning: it can disable reporting of > >> > gestures when touchpad works in Relative mode or normal Absolute mode, > >> > or it can enable so called Extended W-Mode when touchpad uses enhanced > >> > Absolute mode (W-mode). The extended W-Mode confuses our driver and > >> > causes missing button presses on some Thinkpads (x250, T450s), so let's > >> > make sure we do not enable it. > >> > > >> > Also, according to the spec W mode "... bit is defined only in Absolute > >> > mode on pads whose capExtended capability bit is set. In Relative mode and > >> > in TouchPads without this capability, the bit is reserved and should be > >> > left at 0.", so let's make sure we respect this requirement as well. > >> > > >> > Reported-by: Nick Bowler <nbowler@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Suggested-by: Gabor Balla <gaborwho@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Tested-by: Gabor Balla <gaborwho@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Tested-by: Nick Bowler <nbowler@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> I believe Dmitry is going to revert this commit very shortly. See > >> > >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg41176.html > >> > >> You might want to leave this one out of both 4.2.y and 4.1.1y. > > > > I prefer to wait for stuff like this to hit Linus's tree to keep in > > sync, bugs at all at times. > > Wait, what? You're going to release a stable kernel with a patch that > is known to be buggy just to keep it in sync with a buggy upstream > Linus tree? That doesn't make sense to me. I would maybe understand > if the upstream solution wasn't "revert this" and instead had a follow > on patch, but knowing upstream is going to revert and still including > it is confusing. We do this all the time, as the patch usually takes a while to get reverted in Linus's tree, and there doesn't seem to be any "rush" at the moment to get it reverted, I usually just leave things as-is if for no other reason than to wake the maintainer up :) Unless the maintainer asks me not to include it, then I'll reconsider, otherwise I have to trust that a random person says that the patch will be reverted some unknown time in the future by some other person, and that's nothing I can really count on. Again, keeping the trees in sync, even for bugs, makes things easier overall. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html