From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261567AbUBNJ63 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:58:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261595AbUBNJ62 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:58:28 -0500 Received: from twilight.ucw.cz ([81.30.235.3]:44160 "EHLO midnight.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261567AbUBNJ61 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Feb 2004 04:58:27 -0500 Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 10:59:00 +0100 From: Vojtech Pavlik To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Meelis Roos Subject: Re: Strange atkbd messages with missing keyboard Message-ID: <20040214095900.GA323@ucw.cz> References: <200402131327.46543.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <20040213185744.GA1371@ucw.cz> <200402131746.15884.dtor_core@ameritech.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200402131746.15884.dtor_core@ameritech.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2004 at 05:46:15PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > I wonder if changing timeout in atkbd_sendbyte to 400 or 500 ms will > > > cure the problem. > > > > It probably would, but it also would slow down the detection. I think we > > can simply ignore bytes with the timeout flag set in the atkbd_interrupt > > function when we're not expecting an ACK/NAK. > > > > The problem with this approach is that if late NAK comes while we are > actually waiting for result of some other command it will interfere and > can cause misdetection. This only happens with timeout NAKs. And in that case, there is no device to talk to - and thus nothing can be misdetected. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR