DualPoint TouchPad at isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 1 bytes away
Hi there,
For a couple of days I have been having this weird issue:
[ 156.930963] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 1 bytes away.
[ 157.442945] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 231.973476] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 2 bytes away.
[ 232.482265] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 261.991782] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 2 bytes away.
[ 262.502352] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 352.047617] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 1 bytes away.
[ 352.558212] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 362.052381] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 5 bytes away.
[ 362.563375] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 367.056169] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 1 bytes away.
[ 367.081648] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
[ 397.078164] psmouse serio1: DualPoint TouchPad at
isa0060/serio1/input0 lost synchronization, throwing 3 bytes away.
[ 397.588231] psmouse serio1: resync failed, issuing reconnect request
This started (I think) to happen after I upgraded to linux 3.16:
$ uname -a
Linux maester 3.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.16.7-ckt2-1~bpo70+1
(2014-12-08) x86_64 GNU/Linux
What's really odd, is that it now also happen when I use an older
kernel (3.14). I have never been able to use the 3.2 kernel on this
machine (issue with the graphic card). To make matter worse, I have
some keyboard issues too (duplicate key events, and minor latency when
typing).
System is: DELL Vostro 3750 (wheezy + backports)
Does that make any sense to anybody ?
Thx,
--
Mathieu
Reply to: