[6/8] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: use a sparse keymap for hotkey event generation

Commit Message

Darren Hart April 1, 2017, 8 p.m. UTC

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 01:22:02PM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > @@ -1098,14 +1075,8 @@ static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> >  	 * handled in software; its state is queried using FUNC_FLAGS
> >  	 */
> >  	if ((fujitsu_laptop->flags_supported & BIT(26)) &&
> > -	    (call_fext_func(FUNC_FLAGS, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26))) {
> > -		keycode = KEY_TOUCHPAD_TOGGLE;
> > -		input_report_key(input, keycode, 1);
> > -		input_sync(input);
> > -		input_report_key(input, keycode, 0);
> > -		input_sync(input);
> > -	}
> > -
> > +	    (call_fext_func(FLAG_RFKILL, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26)))
> > +		sparse_keymap_report_event(input, BIT(26), 1, true);
> 
> I have only just now noticed that a typo crept in here, causing a bug.
> The original call to call_fext_func() passed FUNC_FLAGS as the first
> argument while the added one uses FLAG_RFKILL instead.  This is wrong as
> call_fext_func() arguments should be left intact by this patch.
> 
> Darren, could you please amend this in testing?  The call_fext_func()
> call added by the above patch chunk should pass FUNC_FLAGS as the first
> argument, not FLAG_RFKILL.
> 
> Thanks and sorry for the trouble.

Gah, I didn't catch that either :(

I've updated this patch with:

in pdx86/testing, I'll push to for-next today, just as soon as CI confirms no
issues.

Thank you for catching it,

Comments

Jonathan Woithe April 2, 2017, 9:01 a.m. UTC | #1

On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 01:00:23PM -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 01:22:02PM +0200, Micha?? K??pie?? wrote:
> > > @@ -1098,14 +1075,8 @@ static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
> > >  	 * handled in software; its state is queried using FUNC_FLAGS
> > >  	 */
> > >  	if ((fujitsu_laptop->flags_supported & BIT(26)) &&
> > > -	    (call_fext_func(FUNC_FLAGS, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26))) {
> > > -		keycode = KEY_TOUCHPAD_TOGGLE;
> > > -		input_report_key(input, keycode, 1);
> > > -		input_sync(input);
> > > -		input_report_key(input, keycode, 0);
> > > -		input_sync(input);
> > > -	}
> > > -
> > > +	    (call_fext_func(FLAG_RFKILL, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26)))
> > > +		sparse_keymap_report_event(input, BIT(26), 1, true);
> > 
> > I have only just now noticed that a typo crept in here, causing a bug.
> > The original call to call_fext_func() passed FUNC_FLAGS as the first
> > argument while the added one uses FLAG_RFKILL instead.  This is wrong as
> > call_fext_func() arguments should be left intact by this patch.
> > 
> > Darren, could you please amend this in testing?  The call_fext_func()
> > call added by the above patch chunk should pass FUNC_FLAGS as the first
> > argument, not FLAG_RFKILL.
> > 
> > Thanks and sorry for the trouble.
> 
> Gah, I didn't catch that either :(

And I missed it too. :-(  Thanks for catching this Michael.  The reason it
never showed up in my testing is that my Fujitsu hardware doesn't have the
feature which exercises this code branch.

> I've updated this patch with:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
> index 52d6d21..f66da4b 100644

Thanks Darren.

Regards
  jonathan

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
index 52d6d21..f66da4b 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/fujitsu-laptop.c
@@ -1074,7 +1074,7 @@  static void acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(struct acpi_device *device, u32 event)
         * handled in software; its state is queried using FUNC_FLAGS
         */
        if ((fujitsu_laptop->flags_supported & BIT(26)) &&
-           (call_fext_func(FLAG_RFKILL, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26)))
+           (call_fext_func(FUNC_FLAGS, 0x1, 0x0, 0x0) & BIT(26)))
                sparse_keymap_report_event(input, BIT(26), 1, true);
 }