Re: Synaptics RMI4 touchpad regression in 4.11-rc1
From: Benjamin Tissoires
Date: Fri Mar 31 2017 - 04:58:14 EST
On Mar 29 2017 or thereabouts, Andrew Duggan wrote:
>
>
> On 03/29/2017 01:50 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > On Mar 28 2017 or thereabouts, Andrew Duggan wrote:
> > > On 03/19/2017 10:00 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:23:36PM -0700, Andrew Duggan wrote:
> > > > > On 03/17/2017 09:57 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Andrew Duggan<aduggan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 03/13/2017 10:10 PM, Cameron Gutman wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 03/13/2017 06:35 PM, Andrew Duggan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 03/13/2017 06:15 AM, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > [Resending, forgot to add Jiri in CC]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13 2017 or thereabouts, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 13 2017 or thereabouts, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Lo! On 12.03.2017 02:55, Cameron Gutman wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Beginning in 4.11-rc1, it looks like RMI4 is binding to my XPS 13
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 9343's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Synaptics touchpad and dropping some errors into dmesg. Here are the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > messages that seem RMI-related:
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f34 rmi4-00.fn34: rmi_f34v7_probe: Unrecognized bootloader
> > > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f34: probe of rmi4-00.fn34 failed with error -22
> > > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f01 rmi4-00.fn01: found RMI device, manufacturer: Synaptics,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > product: TM3038-001, fw id: 1832324
> > > > > > > > > > > > > input: Synaptics TM3038-001 as
> > > > > > > > > > > > > /devices/pci0000:00/INT3433:00/i2c-7/i2c-DLL0665:01/0018:06CB:76AD.0001/input/input19
> > > > > > > > > > > > > hid-rmi 0018:06CB:76AD.0001: input,hidraw0: I2C HID v1.00 Mouse
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [DLL0665:01 06CB:76AD] on i2c-DLL0665:01
> > > > > > > > > > > > FWIW, I get this on my XPS 13 DE (9360) with 4.11-rc1:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > input: SynPS/2 Synaptics TouchPad as
> > > > > > > > > > > > /devices/platform/i8042/serio1/input/input6
> > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f34 rmi4-00.fn34: rmi_f34v7_probe: Unrecognized bootloader
> > > > > > > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f34: probe of rmi4-00.fn34 failed with error -22
> > > > > > > > > > > > rmi4_f01 rmi4-00.fn01: found RMI device, manufacturer: Synaptics,
> > > > > > > > > > > > product: TM3038-003, fw id: 2375007
> > > > > > > > > > > > input: Synaptics TM3038-003 as
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:15.1/i2c_designware.1/i2c-8/i2c-DLL075B:01/0018:06CB:76AF.0001/input/input20
> > > > > > > > > > > > hid-rmi 0018:06CB:76AF.0001: input,hidraw0: I2C HID v1.00 Mouse
> > > > > > > > > > > > [DLL075B:01 06CB:76AF] on i2c-DLL075B:01
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [â]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Compared to hid-multitouch, the RMI stack seems to have completely
> > > > > > > > > > > > > broken
> > > > > > > > > > > > > palm rejection and introduced some random jumpiness during fine
> > > > > > > > > > > > > pointing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > motions. I don't know if these issues are caused by the above errors
> > > > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > > are a separate issue.
> > > > > > > > > The error about the bootloader version not being recognized just means
> > > > > > > > > that updating the firmware is not supported on this touchpad. It is only the
> > > > > > > > > F34 firmware update functionality which is failing to load. The palm
> > > > > > > > > rejection and jumps are not related to this error.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe that code path should be changed to not make as much noise when it
> > > > > > > > runs
> > > > > > > > on known unsupported hardware. Something like the attached patch?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looking at how hid-multitouch handles palms it looks like palms should
> > > > > > > > > not be reported as active when calling input_mt_report_slot_state(). I'm
> > > > > > > > > setting the tool type to MT_TOOL_PALM when the firmware determines that a
> > > > > > > > > contact is a palm. But, that does not seem to be sufficient enough to have
> > > > > > > > > the palms filtered out. After some quick testing it looks like the change
> > > > > > > > > below will restore palm rejection similar to that provided by
> > > > > > > > > hid-multitouch.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It looks like your email client ate the tabs, but if I apply the change
> > > > > > > > myself it seems to fix the palm rejection regression for me.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tested-by: Cameron Gutman<aicommander@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sorry, I was short on time and just copied the diff into the email. I'll
> > > > > > > submit a proper patch soon with your tested-by included. Thanks for testing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I just pointed out this patch (well the actual submission) to Jason
> > > > > > (Cc-ed). Given that there is no proper handling of MT_TOOL_PALM yet in
> > > > > > userspace, I thought it was the easiest way.
> > > > > > However, it seems that this doesn't enhance the jumps and just make it worse.
> > > > > I was assuming that the jumps and palm rejection where two separate issues.
> > > > > But, the palm rejection patch makes things worse?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is there anything we can do to fix it (besides temporary disabling the
> > > > > > automatic loading of hid-rmi)?
> > > > > I do not have a fix for the jumps yet. My next step is to file a bug against
> > > > > libinput or the kernel. I used evemu-record to capture a log with jumps, but
> > > > > when I play it back with a different userspace input stack with an older
> > > > > version of libinput I do not see the jumps. I see the jumps on Fedora 25
> > > > > with libinput 1.6.3 vs Ubuntu 16.10 with libinput 1.4.3 with X). Or at least
> > > > > the jumps are not as significant. But, its possible there is an issue with
> > > > > how the events are being reported which is incorrect and confusing libinput.
> > > > > The X and Y coordinates being reported by the firmware seem correct and I
> > > > > haven't found a problem yet. I thought a bug would be a better place to
> > > > > collect evemu-record logs and compare.
> > > > fwiw, there's a fairly easy way to quickly check libinput for changes and
> > > > that's by having the gtk3-headers installed at configure time and then
> > > > running sudo ./tools/event-gui to visualize the movement (Esc quits)
> > > >
> > > > That tool uses libinput data directly to draw pointer motion etc, so it's a
> > > > way to quickly bisect to where changes happen. Without anything else to go
> > > > on, I'd say it's the new touchpad acceleration code from libinput 1.5 - the
> > > > max accel factor has changed so depending on the speed of the jumps, you can
> > > > now get stronger pointer movement.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > I have been looking into this on and off and I found a couple things, but
> > > nothing conclusive yet. I think Peter is right that versions of libinput 1.5
> > > and later do make the jump more pronounced. But, the new acceleration code
> > > my simply be amplifying the jumps. I went ahead and filed a libinput bug
> > > since the jumps are more significant in newer versions of libinput and I
> > > attached some evemu-record logs.
> > >
> > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100436
> > >
> > > I also spent time looking into the kernel drivers to see if they were
> > > causing or contributing to the jumps. One of the things that I tried was
> > > calling rmi_irq_fn() from a workqueue instead of calling
> > > generic_handle_irq(). Originally, we were using a workqueue before interrupt
> > > handling was added to the rmi core. I also tried moving the call to
> > > generic_handle_irq() to a workqueue. In both cases the jumps seemed to
> > > disappear or at least be reduced. I looked through the irq handling code and
> > > I did not see anything which should cause an issue. The only difference
> > > between irq thread and the workqueue that I could think of is that the irq
> > > thread runs at a higher priority. But, I didn't really see much of a
> > > difference between the timing of the events in the evemu-record logs.
> > Despite libinput having issues has reported by Peter, I wonder if the
> > priority of the IRQ thread isn't the one interfering with the data here.
> > In the workqueue version, the processing of the events didn't interfere
> > with the retrieval of the I2C values. But with the IRQ thread, we might
> > be delaying the retrieval of the values, and we might not be reading the
> > correct value at the right time (oversimplifying it, but I think you get
> > the gist of it). The 2 IRQ threads from I2C to read the data and the
> > other one from RMI4 might simply be interfering.
> >
> > I am sure you have something equivalent in your tree, but could you
> > confirm that the following patch removes the jumps?
>
> Yes, this patch does remove the jumps. My version just restored the old
> functionality which was to call rmi_process_interrupts from a workqueue
> inside hid-rmi. Your patch seems more complete.
>
> I did look to see if I could find something in the threaded IRQ code which
> would confirm that there was some interference going on. But, I didn't find
> anything. I also see jumps with USB devices and since USB devices do not use
> threaded IRQs that did not seem to be the source. Looking at the call stack
> in which rmi_input_event() gets called they seem quite different between USB
> and I2C.
>
> I also tried calling generic_handle_irq() from a workqueue and that also
> seemed to remove the jumps. That led me to look into if there were any side
> affects from calling local_irq_save / restore or generic_handle_irq() from
> inside the IRQ thread or IRQ handler. But, I could not find anything which
> would indicate that doing this was unsafe.
>
> This is what I tried:
> https://github.com/aduggan/linux/commit/d484e423e7375f1a6564f735f44a1246f6c0ee84
Thanks. Your patch looks smaller than mine :)
Jiri, Dmitry, which patch would you prefer having upstream?
Andrew's patch is smaller but requires a workqueue in hid-rmi, which
then reinject the IRQ in RMI4. Mine has the workqueue in RMI4 and
ditches the IRQ in hid-rmi all together (so no need to call
local_irq_save() anymore).
>
> > ---
> >
> > From b60c0b4f145e171e55ffd861a852a49f5104d59f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Benjamin Tissoires<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2017 10:41:34 +0200
> > Subject: [PATCH] Input: rmi4 - remove the need for artificial IRQ in case of
> > HID
> >
> > The IRQ from rmi4 may interfere with the one we currently use on i2c-hid.
> > Given that there is already a need for an external API from rmi4 to
> > forward the attention data, we can, in this particular case rely on a
> > separate workqueue to prevent cursor jumps.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires<benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Tested-by: Andrew Duggan <aduggan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Great :)
Just to be sure, does suspend/resume still works?
And also, could you send to Peter a new evemu-record of the device
without the jumps? (attaching it on the fdo bug should be sufficient I
guess).
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> > ---
> > drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c | 64 ---------------------
> > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > include/linux/rmi.h | 1 +
> > 3 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 112 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> > index 5b40c26..4aa882c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-rmi.c
> > @@ -316,19 +316,12 @@ static int rmi_input_event(struct hid_device *hdev, u8 *data, int size)
> > {
> > struct rmi_data *hdata = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> > struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = hdata->xport.rmi_dev;
> > - unsigned long flags;
> > if (!(test_bit(RMI_STARTED, &hdata->flags)))
> > return 0;
> > - local_irq_save(flags);
> > -
> > rmi_set_attn_data(rmi_dev, data[1], &data[2], size - 2);
> > - generic_handle_irq(hdata->rmi_irq);
> > -
> > - local_irq_restore(flags);
> > -
> > return 1;
> > }
> > @@ -556,56 +549,6 @@ static const struct rmi_transport_ops hid_rmi_ops = {
> > .reset = rmi_hid_reset,
> > };
> > -static void rmi_irq_teardown(void *data)
> > -{
> > - struct rmi_data *hdata = data;
> > - struct irq_domain *domain = hdata->domain;
> > -
> > - if (!domain)
> > - return;
> > -
> > - irq_dispose_mapping(irq_find_mapping(domain, 0));
> > -
> > - irq_domain_remove(domain);
> > - hdata->domain = NULL;
> > - hdata->rmi_irq = 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static int rmi_irq_map(struct irq_domain *h, unsigned int virq,
> > - irq_hw_number_t hw_irq_num)
> > -{
> > - irq_set_chip_and_handler(virq, &dummy_irq_chip, handle_simple_irq);
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > -static const struct irq_domain_ops rmi_irq_ops = {
> > - .map = rmi_irq_map,
> > -};
> > -
> > -static int rmi_setup_irq_domain(struct hid_device *hdev)
> > -{
> > - struct rmi_data *hdata = hid_get_drvdata(hdev);
> > - int ret;
> > -
> > - hdata->domain = irq_domain_create_linear(hdev->dev.fwnode, 1,
> > - &rmi_irq_ops, hdata);
> > - if (!hdata->domain)
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > -
> > - ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(&hdev->dev, &rmi_irq_teardown, hdata);
> > - if (ret)
> > - return ret;
> > -
> > - hdata->rmi_irq = irq_create_mapping(hdata->domain, 0);
> > - if (hdata->rmi_irq <= 0) {
> > - hid_err(hdev, "Can't allocate an IRQ\n");
> > - return hdata->rmi_irq < 0 ? hdata->rmi_irq : -ENXIO;
> > - }
> > -
> > - return 0;
> > -}
> > -
> > static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> > {
> > struct rmi_data *data = NULL;
> > @@ -677,18 +620,11 @@ static int rmi_probe(struct hid_device *hdev, const struct hid_device_id *id)
> > mutex_init(&data->page_mutex);
> > - ret = rmi_setup_irq_domain(hdev);
> > - if (ret) {
> > - hid_err(hdev, "failed to allocate IRQ domain\n");
> > - return ret;
> > - }
> > -
> > if (data->device_flags & RMI_DEVICE_HAS_PHYS_BUTTONS)
> > rmi_hid_pdata.f30_data.disable = true;
> > data->xport.dev = hdev->dev.parent;
> > data->xport.pdata = rmi_hid_pdata;
> > - data->xport.pdata.irq = data->rmi_irq;
> > data->xport.proto_name = "hid";
> > data->xport.ops = &hid_rmi_ops;
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> > index d64fc92..5e65cba 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> > @@ -209,32 +209,46 @@ void rmi_set_attn_data(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, unsigned long irq_status,
> > attn_data.data = fifo_data;
> > kfifo_put(&drvdata->attn_fifo, attn_data);
> > +
> > + schedule_work(&drvdata->attn_work);
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_set_attn_data);
> > -static irqreturn_t rmi_irq_fn(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > +static void attn_callback(struct work_struct *work)
> > {
> > - struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = dev_id;
> > - struct rmi_driver_data *drvdata = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev);
> > + struct rmi_driver_data *drvdata = container_of(work,
> > + struct rmi_driver_data,
> > + attn_work);
> > struct rmi4_attn_data attn_data = {0};
> > int ret, count;
> > count = kfifo_get(&drvdata->attn_fifo, &attn_data);
> > - if (count) {
> > - *(drvdata->irq_status) = attn_data.irq_status;
> > - drvdata->attn_data = attn_data;
> > - }
> > + if (!count)
> > + return;
> > - ret = rmi_process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> > + *(drvdata->irq_status) = attn_data.irq_status;
> > + drvdata->attn_data = attn_data;
> > +
> > + ret = rmi_process_interrupt_requests(drvdata->rmi_dev);
> > if (ret)
> > - rmi_dbg(RMI_DEBUG_CORE, &rmi_dev->dev,
> > + rmi_dbg(RMI_DEBUG_CORE, &drvdata->rmi_dev->dev,
> > "Failed to process interrupt request: %d\n", ret);
> > - if (count)
> > - kfree(attn_data.data);
> > + kfree(attn_data.data);
> > if (!kfifo_is_empty(&drvdata->attn_fifo))
> > - return rmi_irq_fn(irq, dev_id);
> > + schedule_work(&drvdata->attn_work);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static irqreturn_t rmi_irq_fn(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > +{
> > + struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = dev_id;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + ret = rmi_process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> > + if (ret)
> > + rmi_dbg(RMI_DEBUG_CORE, &rmi_dev->dev,
> > + "Failed to process interrupt request: %d\n", ret);
> > return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > }
> > @@ -242,7 +256,6 @@ static irqreturn_t rmi_irq_fn(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > static int rmi_irq_init(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
> > {
> > struct rmi_device_platform_data *pdata = rmi_get_platform_data(rmi_dev);
> > - struct rmi_driver_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev);
> > int irq_flags = irq_get_trigger_type(pdata->irq);
> > int ret;
> > @@ -260,8 +273,6 @@ static int rmi_irq_init(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
> > return ret;
> > }
> > - data->enabled = true;
> > -
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -910,23 +921,27 @@ void rmi_enable_irq(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, bool clear_wake)
> > if (data->enabled)
> > goto out;
> > - enable_irq(irq);
> > - data->enabled = true;
> > - if (clear_wake && device_may_wakeup(rmi_dev->xport->dev)) {
> > - retval = disable_irq_wake(irq);
> > - if (retval)
> > - dev_warn(&rmi_dev->dev,
> > - "Failed to disable irq for wake: %d\n",
> > - retval);
> > - }
> > + if (irq) {
> > + enable_irq(irq);
> > + data->enabled = true;
> > + if (clear_wake && device_may_wakeup(rmi_dev->xport->dev)) {
> > + retval = disable_irq_wake(irq);
> > + if (retval)
> > + dev_warn(&rmi_dev->dev,
> > + "Failed to disable irq for wake: %d\n",
> > + retval);
> > + }
> > - /*
> > - * Call rmi_process_interrupt_requests() after enabling irq,
> > - * otherwise we may lose interrupt on edge-triggered systems.
> > - */
> > - irq_flags = irq_get_trigger_type(pdata->irq);
> > - if (irq_flags & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
> > - rmi_process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> > + /*
> > + * Call rmi_process_interrupt_requests() after enabling irq,
> > + * otherwise we may lose interrupt on edge-triggered systems.
> > + */
> > + irq_flags = irq_get_trigger_type(pdata->irq);
> > + if (irq_flags & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
> > + rmi_process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
> > + } else {
> > + data->enabled = true;
> > + }
> > out:
> > mutex_unlock(&data->enabled_mutex);
> > @@ -946,20 +961,22 @@ void rmi_disable_irq(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, bool enable_wake)
> > goto out;
> > data->enabled = false;
> > - disable_irq(irq);
> > - if (enable_wake && device_may_wakeup(rmi_dev->xport->dev)) {
> > - retval = enable_irq_wake(irq);
> > - if (retval)
> > - dev_warn(&rmi_dev->dev,
> > - "Failed to enable irq for wake: %d\n",
> > - retval);
> > - }
> > -
> > - /* make sure the fifo is clean */
> > - while (!kfifo_is_empty(&data->attn_fifo)) {
> > - count = kfifo_get(&data->attn_fifo, &attn_data);
> > - if (count)
> > - kfree(attn_data.data);
> > + if (irq) {
> > + disable_irq(irq);
> > + if (enable_wake && device_may_wakeup(rmi_dev->xport->dev)) {
> > + retval = enable_irq_wake(irq);
> > + if (retval)
> > + dev_warn(&rmi_dev->dev,
> > + "Failed to enable irq for wake: %d\n",
> > + retval);
> > + }
> > + } else {
> > + /* make sure the fifo is clean */
> > + while (!kfifo_is_empty(&data->attn_fifo)) {
> > + count = kfifo_get(&data->attn_fifo, &attn_data);
> > + if (count)
> > + kfree(attn_data.data);
> > + }
> > }
> > out:
> > @@ -998,9 +1015,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(rmi_driver_resume);
> > static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev)
> > {
> > struct rmi_device *rmi_dev = to_rmi_device(dev);
> > + struct rmi_driver_data *data = dev_get_drvdata(&rmi_dev->dev);
> > rmi_disable_irq(rmi_dev, false);
> > + cancel_work_sync(&data->attn_work);
> > +
> > rmi_f34_remove_sysfs(rmi_dev);
> > rmi_free_function_list(rmi_dev);
> > @@ -1230,9 +1250,15 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> > }
> > }
> > - retval = rmi_irq_init(rmi_dev);
> > - if (retval < 0)
> > - goto err_destroy_functions;
> > + if (pdata->irq) {
> > + retval = rmi_irq_init(rmi_dev);
> > + if (retval < 0)
> > + goto err_destroy_functions;
> > + }
> > +
> > + data->enabled = true;
> > +
> > + INIT_WORK(&data->attn_work, attn_callback);
> > if (data->f01_container->dev.driver)
> > /* Driver already bound, so enable ATTN now. */
> > diff --git a/include/linux/rmi.h b/include/linux/rmi.h
> > index 64125443..dc90178 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/rmi.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/rmi.h
> > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ struct rmi_driver_data {
> > struct rmi4_attn_data attn_data;
> > DECLARE_KFIFO(attn_fifo, struct rmi4_attn_data, 16);
> > + struct work_struct attn_work;
> > };
> > int rmi_register_transport_device(struct rmi_transport_dev *xport);
> > -- 2.9.3 I only tested this on a prototype attached to a cp2112 USB to
> > I2C, so I haven't tested suspend/resume and can't check on the jumps
> > here.
> > > At this point I am still not sure if the issue is that the events are being
> > > reported incorrectly by the kernel or if the new touchpad acceleration code
> > > in libinput is just not handling the events correctly. I would appreciate
> > > any suggestions. I'm not sure how much time we have left before we need to
> > > decide if we need to go back to hid-multitouch or not.
> > If we can get the confirmation that removing the IRQ handling from
> > hid-rmi solves the issue, it would be a matter of submitting this patch
> > to upstream. I also wonder if currently non PTP touchpads are affected
> > by the jumps or not. If not, I'd say it's safer to delay the HID
> > catchall for v4.12, if they are, then we should probably make sure this
> > patch (or any fix) gets into v4.11.
>
> Yes, I was able to reproduce the jumps on non PTP touchpads so all touchpads
> seem to be affected by this.
>
> Andrew
>
> > Cheers,
> > Benjamin
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew
> > >
> > > > > Hopefully, this will end up being a quick fix in the kernel and we can get
> > > > > it applied to 4.11 without having to hold off on disabling hid-rmi for PTPs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Benjamin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Just to confirm: I noticed "jumpiness during fine pointing motions" as
> > > > > > > > > > > > well since switching to 4.11-rc.
> > > > > > > > > One of my test systems is a XPS 13 9343 and I have not really seen any
> > > > > > > > > jumpiness. But, based on the data I am seeing that if I lift my finger and
> > > > > > > > > place it again in a short period of time the first event or so will be at
> > > > > > > > > the location of the previous contact. Then it will switch over to the
> > > > > > > > > current location. When switching over to hid-multitouch I was unable to
> > > > > > > > > reproduce this behavior. This definitely could be the source of the jumps.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The jumpiness definitely happens without lifting my finger, but I'm
> > > > > > > > willing
> > > > > > > > to test any patch you think would improve the situation. Moving one finger
> > > > > > > > slowly in a figure-8 across my touchpad shows the issue clearly for me.
> > > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > > small variations in speed of my finger due to the friction on the trackpad
> > > > > > > > get magnified to relatively large jumpy pointer movements on screen. It
> > > > > > > > seems much more noticeable in diagonal movements than completely vertical
> > > > > > > > or horizontal movements.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > > > Cameron
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f34v7.c
> > > > > > > > b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f34v7.c
> > > > > > > > index 56c6c39..1291d9a 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f34v7.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_f34v7.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -1369,9 +1369,9 @@ int rmi_f34v7_probe(struct f34_data *f34)
> > > > > > > > } else if (f34->bootloader_id[1] == 7) {
> > > > > > > > f34->bl_version = 7;
> > > > > > > > } else {
> > > > > > > > - dev_err(&f34->fn->dev, "%s: Unrecognized bootloader
> > > > > > > > version\n",
> > > > > > > > - __func__);
> > > > > > > > - return -EINVAL;
> > > > > > > > + dev_info(&f34->fn->dev, "%s: Unsupported bootloader
> > > > > > > > version: %u\n",
> > > > > > > > + __func__, f34->bootloader_id[1]);
> > > > > > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > memset(&f34->v7.blkcount, 0x00, sizeof(f34->v7.blkcount));
>