[PATCH] Input: iqs7222 - avoid enabling unused interrupts

[PATCH] Input: iqs7222 - avoid enabling unused interrupts

[Jeff LaBundy]

If a proximity event node is defined so as to specify the wake-up
properties of the touch surface, the proximity event interrupt is
enabled unconditionally. This may result in unwanted interrupts.

Solve this problem by enabling the interrupt only if the event is
mapped to a key or switch code.

Signed-off-by: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>
---
 drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
index 80b917944b51..ea26f85b9e9e 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
@@ -2424,6 +2424,9 @@ static int iqs7222_parse_chan(struct iqs7222_private *iqs7222,
 		if (error)
 			return error;
 
+		if (!iqs7222->kp_type[chan_index][i])
+			continue;
+
 		if (!dev_desc->event_offset)
 			continue;
 
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH] Input: iqs7222 - avoid enabling unused interrupts

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi Jeff,

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 07:20:22PM -0500, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> If a proximity event node is defined so as to specify the wake-up
> properties of the touch surface, the proximity event interrupt is
> enabled unconditionally. This may result in unwanted interrupts.
> 
> Solve this problem by enabling the interrupt only if the event is
> mapped to a key or switch code.

Should I tag this for stable?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>
> ---
>  drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> index 80b917944b51..ea26f85b9e9e 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> @@ -2424,6 +2424,9 @@ static int iqs7222_parse_chan(struct iqs7222_private *iqs7222,
>  		if (error)
>  			return error;
>  
> +		if (!iqs7222->kp_type[chan_index][i])
> +			continue;
> +
>  		if (!dev_desc->event_offset)
>  			continue;
>  

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] Input: iqs7222 - avoid enabling unused interrupts

[Jeff LaBundy]

Hi Dmitry,

On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 06:00:46PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 07:20:22PM -0500, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> > If a proximity event node is defined so as to specify the wake-up
> > properties of the touch surface, the proximity event interrupt is
> > enabled unconditionally. This may result in unwanted interrupts.
> > 
> > Solve this problem by enabling the interrupt only if the event is
> > mapped to a key or switch code.
> 
> Should I tag this for stable?

Thank you for checking; I'm sorry for the delayed response. Yes, I
think it's fine to tag this for stable.

I didn't CC stable@ originally because I saw this patch as more of
an optimization than a bug fix, but it's low risk enough that it's
fine to include in stable kernels too.

> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff LaBundy <jeff@labundy.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> > index 80b917944b51..ea26f85b9e9e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/iqs7222.c
> > @@ -2424,6 +2424,9 @@ static int iqs7222_parse_chan(struct iqs7222_private *iqs7222,
> >  		if (error)
> >  			return error;
> >  
> > +		if (!iqs7222->kp_type[chan_index][i])
> > +			continue;
> > +
> >  		if (!dev_desc->event_offset)
> >  			continue;
> >  
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry

Kind regards,
Jeff LaBundy

Re: [PATCH] Input: iqs7222 - avoid enabling unused interrupts

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 10:26:42AM -0500, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 06:00:46PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> > 
> > On Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 07:20:22PM -0500, Jeff LaBundy wrote:
> > > If a proximity event node is defined so as to specify the wake-up
> > > properties of the touch surface, the proximity event interrupt is
> > > enabled unconditionally. This may result in unwanted interrupts.
> > > 
> > > Solve this problem by enabling the interrupt only if the event is
> > > mapped to a key or switch code.
> > 
> > Should I tag this for stable?
> 
> Thank you for checking; I'm sorry for the delayed response. Yes, I
> think it's fine to tag this for stable.
> 
> I didn't CC stable@ originally because I saw this patch as more of
> an optimization than a bug fix, but it's low risk enough that it's
> fine to include in stable kernels too.

Applied, thank you.

-- 
Dmitry