Hi Thorsten,

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 10:43 AM Jeffery Miller
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 3:54 AM Thorsten Leemhuis [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

My dmesg from a kernel with the revert:
https://www.leemhuis.info/files/misc/dmesg

In this dmesg output it shows that this is an elantech smbus device:

[    4.260415] psmouse serio1: elantech: assuming hardware version 4 (with firmware version 0x7f3001)
[    4.279297] psmouse serio1: elantech: Synaptics capabilities query result 0x90, 0x18, 0x0f.
[    4.292788] psmouse serio1: elantech: Elan sample query result 00, 80, c9
[    4.319184] psmouse serio1: elantech: Elan ic body: 0x10, current fw version: 0x3
...
[    4.346951] psmouse serio1: elantech: Trying to set up SMBus access
[    4.346986] psmouse serio1: elantech: SMbus companion is not ready yet
[    4.369993] input: ETPS/2 Elantech TrackPoint as /devices/platform/i8042/serio1/input/input7
[    4.376200] systemd[1]: bpf-lsm: LSM BPF program attached
[    4.385192] input: ETPS/2 Elantech Touchpad as /devices/platform/i8042/serio1/input/input5

The change in 92e24e0e57f72e shouldn't affect the elantouch device as  elantech_setup_smbus
initializes `psmouse_smbus_init` with need_deactivate = false.

Did you store dmesg logs from boot without the applied patch?

I intended to ask if you have logs from a boot without 92e24e0e57f72e reverted.

If the delay was being applied the timestamps should show the 30ms delay between
`psmouse serio1: elantech: Trying to set up SMBus access`
and
`psmouse serio1: elantech: SMbus companion is not ready yet`

Thank You,
Jeff