From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751520AbdFGB2E (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:04 -0400 Received: from leo.clearchain.com ([199.73.29.74]:65344 "EHLO mail.clearchain.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751436AbdFGB2C (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jun 2017 21:28:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 11:27:50 +1000 From: Peter Hutterer To: Benjamin Tissoires Cc: "Zheng, Lv" , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Brown, Len" , Lv Zheng , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org" , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [WIP PATCH 2/4] ACPI: button: remove the LID input node when the state is unknown Message-ID: <20170607012750.GB13738@jelly> References: <20170601184632.2980-1-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <20170601184632.2980-3-benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> <1AE640813FDE7649BE1B193DEA596E886CEC50F1@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> <20170606102209.GA14880@mail.corp.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170606102209.GA14880@mail.corp.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.clearchain.com [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 07 Jun 2017 11:02:01 +0930 (CST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 12:22:09PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: [...] > > This is because the aml table puts many Notify(LID, 0x80) in various control methods. > > And not one of them but multiple of them will be invoked by various OS drivers during suspend/resume period. > > I think this is not an isolated platform that will invoke multiple redundant "Notify(lid)". > > > > Fortunately, the lid state for the multiple notify(lid) should be same as the first "Notify(lid)". > > I suppose this is why SW_LID is invented, as it can really filter such redundant events. > > And user space finally can only see 1 "close" event. > > > > But unconditionally prepending "open" before all "close" events surely can break the logic by > > delivering multiple "close" events to the user space. > > That doesn't matter. What matters is the state of the switch, not the > event. So if user space receives (in case we marked the switch as not > reliable) several close events, all user space will do is realize that > the state is still closed and will act accordingly. [...] > Again, we don't care if the "event" comes from ACPI, the driver itself or > user space (libinput). All that matters is the current state of the > input node switch, that needs to match the physical world at any time. as extra comment on those two: you cannot guarantee when e.g. libinput checks the state. it may start up after the kernel has updated the EV_SW state, it may close and re-open a device without notice (disabling a device in X has that effect for example). So the EV_SW/SW_LID events are nice to have, but we really rely on the *state* of the switch more than the events. Cheers, Peter