On Thu, 2019-09-05 at 18:38 +0800, Daniel Drake wrote: > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 6:07 PM Bastien Nocera <had...@hadess.net> > wrote: > > I've read through this, and I'm happy blacklisting the hp_accel > > driver > > in code. For the other devices, I'd rather leave it as-is. > > That would indeed avoid most problem cases that I've seen, and the > current case, probably enough to stop me grumbling for another year > or > so until this happens again in some other context :) > So I support that idea. Do you have any preference on where we > blacklist it? > > In the hwdb it's quite easy to match DMI vendor HP & driver > lis3lv02d. > But we'd really want a new way of saying "ignore the accelerometer" > as > ACCEL_POSITION=base doesn't seem like the right way to express that. > > Or we could blacklist it in iio-sensor-proxy but since there's no > mention of hp_accel in the udev properties for the device (you just > get the driver as li3lv02d) then you'd need to grab the DMI vendor > name from /sys/class/dmi/id or something like that. > Maybe making this driver export enough data so we can blacklist it > would be the best way to go about it, along with a new udev property.
We should make this driver export enough data so we can differentiate it, then we can install a udev property private to iio-sensor-proxy about ignoring specific accelerometers such as this one. This way, the sensor hwdb only contains quirks, not policy decisions about whether the hp_accel driver is worthy. <snip> > In my eyes, having some users that accidently don't get their screens > rotated by the accelerometer (with a relatively simple fix of > whitelisting the product) is a better outcome than having some users > that go through the miserable experience of having your screen > rotated > incorrectly (which is hard to recover from and tricky for a developer > to fix without physical device access). This may just be a difference > of opinion. I think it might not be as widespread a problem as it seems, seeing as we only get to see the negative part of it. > > Also, it would be pretty trivial changing the default GNOME > > configuration to have the accelerometer pegged to the default > > orientation. > > I appreciate the suggestion especially if its trivial but I don't > understand what you wrote here- can you explain a bit more? The equivalent of: $ gsettings set org.gnome.settings-daemon.peripherals.touchscreen orientation-lock false but as a system-wide default value. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
