On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 10:20:15PM +0200, Kirill A. Korinsky wrote:

> On Tue, 26 May 2026 21:21:52 +0200,
> Marcus Glocker <marcus@nazgul.ch> wrote:
> > 
> > In your initial e-mail you are saying 2-3 repeated reads are OK.
> > Now you only implement another additional single read.  Are you sure
> > this is enough?  Wouldn't a capped retry loop be better?  Like 3-5
> > read attempts before finally failing?
> > 
> 
> It was poor wording, I mean that on 2-3 reads I actually read the report and
> it works. After series of additional test to challenge 100ms sleep I
> reallized that I never saw that I beed 2rd read. Second time is enough.
> 
> Somewhere here I had simplified it to current version: ignore first read,
> take the second and use it.
> 
> For last few days I uses it, and that laptop has a lot of reboots (thanks
> qwz debuing) and I use multitouch to scroll in terminal.
> 
> I never observed that it doesn't work. It always work with "ignore first,
> use second report" model.
> 
> This is why I had simplified the patch by avoiding loop and checking
> response for 0xff.

OK.  If the second read reliable fixes your issue, the diff is fine for
me.

ok mglocker@