FAILED: patch "[PATCH] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Stop reporting SW_DOCK events" failed to apply to 5.12-stable tree
Subsystems (2)
[email protected]
maintainerThe patch below does not apply to the 5.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From 2728f39dfc720983e2b69f0f1f0c403aaa7c346f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:35:13 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Stop reporting SW_DOCK events
Stop reporting SW_DOCK events because this breaks suspend-on-lid-close.
SW_DOCK should only be reported for docking stations, but all the DSDTs in my DSDT collection which use the intel-vbtn code, always seem to use this for 2-in-1s / convertibles and set SW_DOCK=1 when in laptop-mode (in tandem with setting SW_TABLET_MODE=0).
This causes userspace to think the laptop is docked to a port-replicator and to disable suspend-on-lid-close, which is undesirable.
Map the dock events to KEY_IGNORE to avoid this broken SW_DOCK reporting.
Note this may theoretically cause us to stop reporting SW_DOCK on some device where the 0xCA and 0xCB intel-vbtn events are actually used for reporting docking to a classic docking-station / port-replicator but I'm not aware of any such devices.
Also the most important thing is that we only report SW_DOCK when it reliably reports being docked to a classic docking-station without any false positives, which clearly is not the case here. If there is a chance of reporting false positives then it is better to not report SW_DOCK at all.
drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c +10 -2
@@ -48,8 +48,16 @@ static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_keymap[] = { };static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_switchmap[] = { - {KE_SW ,0xCA , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,1 } } },/* Docked */ - {KE_SW ,0xCB , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,0 } } },/* Undocked */ +/* +* SW_DOCK should only be reported for docking stations, but DSDTs using the +* intel-vbtn code, always seem to use this for 2-in-1s / convertibles and set +* SW_DOCK=1 when in laptop-mode (in tandem with setting SW_TABLET_MODE=0). +* This causes userspace to think the laptop is docked to a port-replicator +* and to disable suspend-on-lid-close, which is undesirable. +* Map the dock events to KEY_IGNORE to avoid this broken SW_DOCK reporting. +*/ + {KE_IGNORE ,0xCA , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,1 } } },/* Docked */ + {KE_IGNORE ,0xCB , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,0 } } },/* Undocked */ {KE_SW ,0xCC , { .sw = {SW_TABLET_MODE ,1 } } },/* Tablet */ {KE_SW ,0xCD , { .sw = {SW_TABLET_MODE ,0 } } },/* Laptop */ {KE_END }
Hi Greg,
Quoted 5 lines · On 5/12/21 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.
This is already in 5.12, but then as commit 538d2dd0b9920334e6596977a664e9e7bac73703 that is the hash it has on my pdx86/fixes branch, where I cherry picked it from my pdx86/for-next branch.
The 2728f39dfc720983e2b69f0f1f0c403aaa7c346f hash you tried to cherry-pick is from my pdx86/for-next branch and so this same change showed up (again) in 5.13-rc1 under this hash, sorry about the confusion.
Regards,
Hans
Quoted 63 lines
thanks,
greg k-h
------------------ original commit in Linus's tree ------------------
From
2728f39dfc720983e2b69f0f1f0c403aaa7c346fMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Hans de Goede <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2021 17:35:13 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] platform/x86: intel-vbtn: Stop reportingSW_DOCKeventsStop reporting
SW_DOCKevents because this breaks suspend-on-lid-close.
SW_DOCKshould only be reported for docking stations, but all the DSDTs in my DSDT collection which use the intel-vbtn code, always seem to use this for 2-in-1s / convertibles and set SW_DOCK=1 when in laptop-mode (in tandem with setting SW_TABLET_MODE=0).This causes userspace to think the laptop is docked to a port-replicator and to disable suspend-on-lid-close, which is undesirable.
Map the dock events to
KEY_IGNOREto avoid this brokenSW_DOCKreporting.Note this may theoretically cause us to stop reporting
SW_DOCKon some device where the0xCAand0xCBintel-vbtn events are actually used for reporting docking to a classic docking-station / port-replicator but I'm not aware of any such devices.Also the most important thing is that we only report
SW_DOCKwhen it reliably reports being docked to a classic docking-station without any false positives, which clearly is not the case here. If there is a chance of reporting false positives then it is better to not reportSW_DOCKat all.Signed-off-by Hans de Goede <[email protected]>drivers/platform/x86/intel-vbtn.c +10
-2@@ -48,8 +48,16 @@ static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_keymap[] = { };static const struct key_entry intel_vbtn_switchmap[] = { - {KE_SW ,0xCA , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,1 } } },/* Docked */ - {KE_SW ,0xCB , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,0 } } },/* Undocked */ +/* +* SW_DOCK should only be reported for docking stations, but DSDTs using the +* intel-vbtn code, always seem to use this for 2-in-1s / convertibles and set +* SW_DOCK=1 when in laptop-mode (in tandem with setting SW_TABLET_MODE=0). +* This causes userspace to think the laptop is docked to a port-replicator +* and to disable suspend-on-lid-close, which is undesirable. +* Map the dock events to KEY_IGNORE to avoid this broken SW_DOCK reporting. +*/ + {KE_IGNORE ,0xCA , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,1 } } },/* Docked */ + {KE_IGNORE ,0xCB , { .sw = {SW_DOCK ,0 } } },/* Undocked */ {KE_SW ,0xCC , { .sw = {SW_TABLET_MODE ,1 } } },/* Tablet */ {KE_SW ,0xCD , { .sw = {SW_TABLET_MODE ,0 } } },/* Laptop */ {KE_END }
Greg KH
maintainerQuoted 9 lines · Hans de Goede
Hi Greg,
Quoted 5 lines · On 5/12/21 10:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
The patch below does not apply to the 5.12-stable tree.
If someone wants it applied there, or to any other stable or longterm tree, then please email the backport, including the original git commit id to <[email protected]>.
Quoted 7 lines
This is already in 5.12, but then as commit
538d2dd0b9920334e6596977a664e9e7bac73703that is the hash it has on my pdx86/fixes branch, where I cherry picked it from my pdx86/for-next branch.The
2728f39dfc720983e2b69f0f1f0c403aaa7c346fhash you tried to cherry-pick is from my pdx86/for-next branch and so this same change showed up (again) in 5.13-rc1 under this hash, sorry about the confusion.
Ah, that makes sense, thanks for letting me know.
greg k-h