Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <2262737.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher> <5647715.DvuYhMxLoT@kreacher>
 <2283816.ElGaqSPkdT@kreacher> <e7eb0e0c9aea30c0e3205b2f3d96b74a52283b40.camel@hadess.net>
 <CAJZ5v0ibpzoBLXKiqzciYv1Htks0=4+4_XGLvpH7MCyFoYJiDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO-hwJL7n7HFk4MTKvLcvBPSLDwm9pHqLaZvmuwvSNDVWUF76g@mail.gmail.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2212071117420.6045@cbobk.fhfr.pm> <f0ccee0d2f85099c146ee682b25d30c832155fa3.camel@hadess.net>
In-Reply-To: <f0ccee0d2f85099c146ee682b25d30c832155fa3.camel@hadess.net>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 7 Dec 2022 14:00:28 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0iwEKtLVzzJw+XG5-w=qr86ec0yKpAWCU-KLwYmFnt5Zg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] HID: logitech-hidpp: Add Bluetooth Mouse
 M336/M337/M535 to unhandled_hidpp_devices[]
To:     Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net>
Cc:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Filipe_La=C3=ADns?= <lains@riseup.net>,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thorsten Leemhuis <regressions@leemhuis.info>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 7, 2022 at 1:43 PM Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-12-07 at 11:19 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Dec 2022, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> >
> > > Agree, but OTOH, Rafael, your mouse is not brand new AFAICT, so I
> > > am
> > > worried that you won't be the only one complaining we just killed
> > > their
> > > mouse. So I think the even wiser solution would be to delay (and so
> > > revert in 6.1 or 6.2) the 2 patches that enable hid++ on all
> > > logitech
> > > mice (8544c812e43ab7bdf40458411b83987b8cba924d and
> > > 532223c8ac57605a10e46dc0ab23dcf01c9acb43).
> >
> > If we were not at -rc8 timeframe, I'd be in favor to coming up with
> > proper
> > fix still for 6.1. But as things currently are, let's just revert
> > those
> > and reschedule them with proper fix for 6.2+.
>
> Has anyone seen any other reports?
>
> Because, honestly, seeing work that adds support for dozens of devices
> getting tossed out at the last minute based on a single report with no
> opportunity to fix the problem is really frustrating.

Well, that's why I sent patches to address this particular case
without possibly breaking anything else.

Improvements can be made on top of them and the blocklist entry added
by patch [2/2] need not stay there forever, FWIW.