From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Len Brown Subject: Re: Laptop keyboard unusable when ACPI is active Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:04:56 -0500 Message-ID: <200711232304.57652.lenb@kernel.org> References: <20071123084443.2cf6b61e@loke.fish.not> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from hera.kernel.org ([140.211.167.34]:54825 "EHLO hera.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751002AbXKXEF0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Nov 2007 23:05:26 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20071123084443.2cf6b61e@loke.fish.not> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Mats Johannesson Cc: pavel@suse.cz, legolas558@users.sourceforge.net, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, astarikovskiy@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Friday 23 November 2007 02:44, Mats Johannesson wrote: > The bad interaction between ACPI controlled EC (embedded controller) > and the i8042 interrupt handler is theorized about in detail at OLPCs > http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/2401 - almost at the end of that page. > Thanks to Daniele C for the link. huh? I believe that the OLPC XO1 does not run in ACPI mode and thus does not use the ACPI EC driver to talk to the EC on their board. Presumably they use some native embedded controller driver to talk to their platform specific embedded controller. I don't know why they call their interrupt an SCI. Per above, it can't be an ACPI SCI. Presumably they call it that b/c their chipset documentation calls it that too, on the (invalid) assumption that an ACPI-enabled OS and firmware would be running on the hardware. Please let me know if I'm wrong. -Len