forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
HID: rmi: use HID_QUIRK_NO_INPUT_SYNC
When we receive a RMI4 report, we should not unconditionally send an input_sync event. Instead, we should let the rmi4 transport layer do it for us. This fixes a situation where we might receive X in a report and the rest in a subsequent one. And this messes up user space. Link: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436 Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net> Tested-by: Oscar Morante <spacepluk@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>
This commit is contained in:
parent
008464a936
commit
c94ba06011
|
@ -413,6 +413,24 @@ static int rmi_event(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_field *field,
|
|||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
static void rmi_report(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_report *report)
|
||||
{
|
||||
struct hid_field *field = report->field[0];
|
||||
|
||||
if (!(hid->claimed & HID_CLAIMED_INPUT))
|
||||
return;
|
||||
|
||||
switch (report->id) {
|
||||
case RMI_READ_DATA_REPORT_ID:
|
||||
/* fall-through */
|
||||
case RMI_ATTN_REPORT_ID:
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if (field && field->hidinput && field->hidinput->input)
|
||||
input_sync(field->hidinput->input);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
|
||||
static int rmi_suspend(struct hid_device *hdev, pm_message_t message)
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
@ -637,6 +655,7 @@ static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
|
|||
hid_set_drvdata(hdev, data);
|
||||
|
||||
hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INIT_REPORTS;
|
||||
hdev->quirks |= HID_QUIRK_NO_INPUT_SYNC;
|
||||
|
||||
ret = hid_parse(hdev);
|
||||
if (ret) {
|
||||
|
@ -744,6 +763,7 @@ static struct hid_driver rmi_driver = {
|
|||
.remove = rmi_remove,
|
||||
.event = rmi_event,
|
||||
.raw_event = rmi_raw_event,
|
||||
.report = rmi_report,
|
||||
.input_mapping = rmi_input_mapping,
|
||||
.input_configured = rmi_input_configured,
|
||||
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user