On September 29, 2015 6:44:52 AM PDT, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >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. Greg, I'd rather we did not merge this path into stable just yet. I'm not sure if I'll revert it outright or if there will be a fixup, but as is it messes up touchpad behavior for many people :( Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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