On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:11:45PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: >> Greg, >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Darren Hart [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:34 PM >> > To: Limonciello, Mario <[email protected]> >> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > [email protected]; [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 V2] >> > mei: >> > bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer) >> > >> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:38:43PM +0000, [email protected] >> > wrote: >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Greg KH [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:24 PM >> > > > To: Limonciello, Mario <[email protected]> >> > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> > > > [email protected]; [email protected] >> > > > Subject: Re: Regression on Dell XPS13 (was: [char-misc for 4.10-rc4 >> > > > V2] mei: >> > > > bus: enable OS version only for SPT and newer) >> > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 04:57:49PM +0000, [email protected] >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > So in the <6s scenario, the intel-hid driver is responsible to >> > > > > receive the ACPI event and process accordingly. The maintainer >> > > > > has a patch ready for the intel-hid portion of this work, but it's >> > > > > currently being reviewed by Intel to ensure it can be legally >> > > > > submitted >> > into the kernel. >> > > > >> > > > Who at Intel do I need to go kick to make this mythical legal review >> > > > happen faster so we can see the code? >> > > > >> > > > Len and Rafael, what is going on here? >> > > > >> > > >> > > Len and Darren are both in the loop on the discussion around this patch. >> > > I don't know if they'll have any (public) comments they can add on the >> > > matter yet however. >> > >> > Thanks Mario. Yes, there isn't much to say here in public other than to >> > confirm >> > we are keenly aware of the problem and have been actively working on fixing >> > it, both for this instance, and the deeper systematic failure that >> > resulted in this >> > situation. No amount of kicking will expedite the process at this point, >> > but >> > should we feel the need, we'll reach out. >> > >> >> The approval has come through and the patch has been submitted. >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/platform-driver-x86/msg10286.html > > Looks like it needs some work :) > > And why isn't it tagged to go to the 4.10-stable kernel if it really > does fix some systems? > >> Note: this is only half of the fix, the second half needs the ACPI subsystem >> to >> not be frozen to be able to receive this event. > > Where is that change? > > I'm still worried about 4.10-final, is that going to be broken for these > types of systems?
Nope. I'm going to revert commit 08b98d329165 (PM / sleep / ACPI: Use the ACPI_FADT_LOW_POWER_S0 flag) which introduced the problem in the first place (yes, the bisection result it misleading). In fact, the revert is in my linux-next branch already, but I'm sort of out in the woods now and the actual pull request will be sent next week. BTW, this is a usual process. We had tried to change the default behaviour for certain class of systems and it didn't work, so we need to take a step back, fix the problems that were exposed and try again later. It has been confused quite a bit, though, which is kind of worrisome. Thanks, Rafael
