From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751198AbdFBHYg (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 03:24:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34626 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750772AbdFBHYe (ORCPT ); Fri, 2 Jun 2017 03:24:34 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 043A5232040 Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 043A5232040 Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 09:24:26 +0200 From: Benjamin Tissoires To: Bastien Nocera Cc: Lv Zheng , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Len Brown , Lv Zheng , Peter Hutterer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [WIP PATCH 0/4] Rework the unreliable LID switch exported by ACPI Message-ID: <20170602072426.GJ1293@mail.corp.redhat.com> References: <20170601184632.2980-1-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <1496353434.2570.5.camel@hadess.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1496353434.2570.5.camel@hadess.net> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.38]); Fri, 02 Jun 2017 07:24:34 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Jun 01 2017 or thereabouts, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2017-06-01 at 20:46 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sending this as a WIP as it still need a few changes, but it mostly > > works as > > expected (still not fully compliant yet). > > > > So this is based on Lennart's comment in [1]: if the LID state is not > > reliable, > > the kernel should not export the LID switch device as long as we are > > not sure > > about its state. > > > > That is the basic idea, and here are some more general comments: > > Lv described the 5 cases in "RFC PATCH v3" regarding the LID switch. > > Let me rewrite them here (they are in patch 2): > > > > 1. Some platforms send "open" ACPI notification to the OS and the > > event > > arrive before the button driver is resumed; > > 2. Some platforms send "open" ACPI notification to the OS, but the > > event > > arrives after the button driver is resumed, ex., Samsung N210+; > > 3. Some platforms never send an "open" ACPI notification to the OS, > > but > > update the cached _LID return value to "open", and this update > > arrives > > before the button driver is resumed; > > 4. Some platforms never send an "open" ACPI notification to the OS, > > but > > update the cached _LID return value to "open", but this update > > arrives > > after the button driver is resumed, ex., Surface Pro 3; > > 5. Some platforms never send an "open" ACPI notification to the OS, > > and > > _LID ACPI method returns a value which stays to "close", ex., > > Surface Pro 1. > > In which case does the Surface 3 lie? I believe we still needed your > "gpiolib-acpi: make sure we trigger the events at least once" patch to > make that one work. Well, the surface 3 is using a different driver for the LID switch (surface3-wmi). From what I can remember, we don't need this patch when using this driver (which is why I did not submitted it further). But I might be wrong... Cheers, Benjamin