On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:11 AM, <[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 > > 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.
Can you please elaborate on what exactly you mean here? ACPI events wake up the system from suspend-to-idle, because the SCI is marked as a wakeup interrupt. Is this not sufficient? If it isn't, then why? Thanks, Rafael
