On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
condition (FYI only)" be better? It is KERN_DEBUG after all.
> stowaway-keyboard-support.patch
> stowaway-keyboard-support-update.patch
stowaway driver is in my tree now.
> stowaway-vs-driver-tree.patch
This is required for Greg's changes which I am unconvinced are needed.
> input-i8042-disable-keyboard-port-when-panicking-and-blinking.patch
> i8042-activate-panic-blink-only-in-x.patch
There was a concern that blinking is useful even when not running X.
Do you have any input?
> wistron-fix-detection-of-special-buttons.patch
Will apply.
--
Dmitry
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:29:43 -0400
"Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
>
> I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
> way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
> to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
> condition (FYI only)" be better? It is KERN_DEBUG after all.
But it irritates some people.
Perhaps we could make the message disable itself after the first 5-10
instances?
> > input-i8042-disable-keyboard-port-when-panicking-and-blinking.patch
> > i8042-activate-panic-blink-only-in-x.patch
>
> There was a concern that blinking is useful even when not running X.
> Do you have any input?
No, sorry.
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
>
> I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
> way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
> to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
> condition (FYI only)" be better?
Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message?
> It is KERN_DEBUG after all.
users can, and do read dmesg.
Dave
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 17:55, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
> >
> > I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
> > way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
> > to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
> > condition (FYI only)" be better?
>
> Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message?
>
A: Nothing. But when they tell me that sometimes they lose keystrokes I
can ask them if they see it in dmesg. And if they see it there is nothing
I can do. Again, if you could suggest a better wording that would not alarm
unsuspecting users that would be great.
--
Dmitry
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 September 2006 17:55, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> > On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
>> >
>> > I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
>> > way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
>> > to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
>> > condition (FYI only)" be better?
>>
>> Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message?
>
> A: Nothing. But when they tell me that sometimes they lose keystrokes I
> can ask them if they see it in dmesg. And if they see it there is nothing
> I can do. Again, if you could suggest a better wording that would not alarm
> unsuspecting users that would be great.
If it is needed only to answer "does my keyboard work", maybe you could
store an error count in the driver, or put it to the event layer.
Coupled with a way to retrieve the value (ioctl+evtest,proc,sys,etc),
the user can get the information they need, but only when they actually
want it.
The networking subsystem seems to store a lot of its error conditions in
proc-accessible counters rather than printing a warning. Thus there is
precedent for avoiding dmesg spam in this way.
Just my $0.02
- Jim Bruce
On 9/21/06, James Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 20 September 2006 17:55, Dave Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 05:29:43PM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >> > On 9/20/06, Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > > remove-silly-messages-from-input-layer.patch
> >> >
> >> > I firmly believe that we should keep reporting these conditions. This
> >> > way we can explain why keyboard might be losing keypresses. I am open
> >> > to changing the message text. Would "atkbd.c: keyboard reported error
> >> > condition (FYI only)" be better?
> >>
> >> Q: What do you expect users to do when they see the message?
> >
> > A: Nothing. But when they tell me that sometimes they lose keystrokes I
> > can ask them if they see it in dmesg. And if they see it there is nothing
> > I can do. Again, if you could suggest a better wording that would not alarm
> > unsuspecting users that would be great.
>
> If it is needed only to answer "does my keyboard work", maybe you could
> store an error count in the driver, or put it to the event layer.
> Coupled with a way to retrieve the value (ioctl+evtest,proc,sys,etc),
> the user can get the information they need, but only when they actually
> want it.
>
> The networking subsystem seems to store a lot of its error conditions in
> proc-accessible counters rather than printing a warning. Thus there is
> precedent for avoiding dmesg spam in this way.
>
That is actually a pretty good idea. I'll add a sysfs counter
attribute and remove that printk, unless there are objections.
--
Dmitry
On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 02:50:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:29:43 -0400
> "Dmitry Torokhov" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > input-i8042-disable-keyboard-port-when-panicking-and-blinking.patch
> > > i8042-activate-panic-blink-only-in-x.patch
> >
> > There was a concern that blinking is useful even when not running X.
> > Do you have any input?
>
> No, sorry.
I found it useful for machines panicking after suspend-to-ram with the
video still dark.
I have, however, not seen a machine panicking on resume for quite some
time. They just hang :-)
--
Stefan Seyfried
QA / R&D Team Mobile Devices | "Any ideas, John?"
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, N?rnberg | "Well, surrounding them's out."