Added quirk for Surface Go touchscreen#100
Merged
qzed merged 1 commit intolinux-surface:v5.12-surface-develfrom Jun 3, 2021
zoltantamasvajda:surface-go-touchscreen-battery-fix
Merged
Added quirk for Surface Go touchscreen#100qzed merged 1 commit intolinux-surface:v5.12-surface-develfrom zoltantamasvajda:surface-go-touchscreen-battery-fix
qzed merged 1 commit intolinux-surface:v5.12-surface-develfrom
zoltantamasvajda:surface-go-touchscreen-battery-fix
Conversation
Member
|
Do you plan on taking this upstream? |
Contributor
Author
|
I can try and see if they want it. This is more of a workaround than a real solution though. I think the reason why it reports having a battery is that the device does not get identified properly so it uses the default values for most properties which just so happens to be true for having a battery. Adding it as a quirk is just kicking the can down the road until someone makes a custom driver. |
Member
Contributor
Author
|
Patch submitted upstream. I'll let you know how it goes. |
Contributor
Author
|
Patch applied upstream! 🥳 |
Member
|
Awesome, thanks! |
kitakar5525
pushed a commit
to kitakar5525/linux-kernel
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 26, 2021
With PREEMPT_COUNT=y, when a CPU is offlined and then onlined again, we get: BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/1/0/0x00000000 no locks held by swapper/1/0. CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ linux-surface#100 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108 __schedule_bug+0xac/0xe0 __schedule+0xcf8/0x10d0 schedule_idle+0x3c/0x70 do_idle+0x2d8/0x4a0 cpu_startup_entry+0x38/0x40 start_secondary+0x2ec/0x3a0 start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14 This is because powerpc's arch_cpu_idle_dead() decrements the idle task's preempt count, for reasons explained in commit a7c2bb8 ("powerpc: Re-enable preemption before cpu_die()"), specifically "start_secondary() expects a preempt_count() of 0." However, since commit 2c669ef ("powerpc/preempt: Don't touch the idle task's preempt_count during hotplug") and commit f1a0a37 ("sched/core: Initialize the idle task with preemption disabled"), that justification no longer holds. The idle task isn't supposed to re-enable preemption, so remove the vestigial preempt_enable() from the CPU offline path. Tested with pseries and powernv in qemu, and pseries on PowerVM. Fixes: 2c669ef ("powerpc/preempt: Don't touch the idle task's preempt_count during hotplug") Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211015173902.2278118-1-nathanl@linux.ibm.com
qzed
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 31, 2021
[ Upstream commit 787252a ] With PREEMPT_COUNT=y, when a CPU is offlined and then onlined again, we get: BUG: scheduling while atomic: swapper/1/0/0x00000000 no locks held by swapper/1/0. CPU: 1 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/1 Not tainted 5.15.0-rc2+ #100 Call Trace: dump_stack_lvl+0xac/0x108 __schedule_bug+0xac/0xe0 __schedule+0xcf8/0x10d0 schedule_idle+0x3c/0x70 do_idle+0x2d8/0x4a0 cpu_startup_entry+0x38/0x40 start_secondary+0x2ec/0x3a0 start_secondary_prolog+0x10/0x14 This is because powerpc's arch_cpu_idle_dead() decrements the idle task's preempt count, for reasons explained in commit a7c2bb8 ("powerpc: Re-enable preemption before cpu_die()"), specifically "start_secondary() expects a preempt_count() of 0." However, since commit 2c669ef ("powerpc/preempt: Don't touch the idle task's preempt_count during hotplug") and commit f1a0a37 ("sched/core: Initialize the idle task with preemption disabled"), that justification no longer holds. The idle task isn't supposed to re-enable preemption, so remove the vestigial preempt_enable() from the CPU offline path. Tested with pseries and powernv in qemu, and pseries on PowerVM. Fixes: 2c669ef ("powerpc/preempt: Don't touch the idle task's preempt_count during hotplug") Signed-off-by: Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com> Reviewed-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com> Reviewed-by: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211015173902.2278118-1-nathanl@linux.ibm.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The Elantech touchscreen/digitizer in the Surface Go mistakenly shows up as having capable of reporting battery (even though it actually cannot). This results in a "low battery" message popping up every time you try to use the pen. This patch adds a quirk allowing the kernel to ignore the the non-existent battery and get rid of the false low battery messages.