From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [PATCH] intel-vbtn: match power button on press rather than release Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2017 00:20:22 +0200 Message-ID: <1700343.1Fm4iKlbcW@aspire.rjw.lan> References: <1501866006-24811-1-git-send-email-mario.limonciello@dell.com> <11471111.T3jHVeqpMT@aspire.rjw.lan> <20170805205753.GA1277@fury> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170805205753.GA1277@fury> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Darren Hart Cc: Mario Limonciello , AceLan Kao , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, LKML , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown , Srinivas Pandruvada , Andy Shevchenko List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Saturday, August 5, 2017 10:57:53 PM CEST Darren Hart wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 01:30:20AM +0200, Rafael Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, August 4, 2017 7:29:53 PM CEST Darren Hart wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 12:00:06PM -0500, Mario Limonciello wrote: > > > > This fixes a problem where the system gets stuck in a loop > > > > unable to wakeup via power button in s2idle. > > > > > > > > The problem happens because: > > > > - press power button: > > > > - system emits 0xc0 (power press), event ignored > > > > - system emits 0xc1 (power release), event processed, > > > > emited as KEY_POWER > > > > - set wakeup_mode to true > > > > - system goes to s2idle > > > > - press power button > > > > - system emits 0xc0 (power press), wakeup_mode is true, > > > > system wakes > > > > - system emits 0xc1 (power release), event processed, > > > > emited as KEY_POWER > > > > - system goes to s2idle again > > > > > > > > To avoid this situation, process the presses (which matches what > > > > intel-hid does too). > > > > > > > > Verified on an Dell XPS 9365 > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello > > > > > > This looks good to me - responding to the release is non-intuitive IMHO > > > anyway. I'd like to see agreement from AceLan, but this should go into > > > the 4.13 rc cycle (at rc3 currently). > > > > Yes, it should, and I'm not sure if the original author's opinion matters here. > > > > The patch makes sense to everyone involved and fixes an annoying issue, so > > I don't see any real arguments against applying it. > > > > Please feel free to add my ACK to it if that helps. > > I always try to give those in MAINTAINERS a chance to respond, but I will queue > this up to fixes now. Thanks!