Add patches for 7.1 - #2178

Surface Laptop Studio 1 : no issue to report, no issue
Surface Book 1 : need this patch

Rebased 0005-ipts.patch, 0009-surface-button.patch, and 0013-cameras.patch because of:
...
Removed 0015-rtc.patch because upstream does something similar:
...

Hi @Apiznel . These changes are more numerous and varied in their nature as a single PR, and harder to discern one from the other, as compared with your previous similar PRs. Especially considering they are distilled into patch files, which in turn patch multiple files.

Are you rebasing from a clone of surface 'kernel' project somewhere, where these changes are easier to read? For example in my case I'm trying to understand what conflict needed to be addressed for the rebasing this time around, just a change in the offset for where the patched are applied, or something more functional?

@orthogonaleety ipts and cameras are just context changes for the aforementioned commits which each correspond to the patch I had to manually rebase. As for surface-button, the function surface_button_check_MSHW0040 now passes acpi_handle handle into the arguments so I just removed the one inside the function. Since dev is now unused in the patch here, I also opted to remove it from arguments (previously, it was used in assigning handle). I haven't made any functional changes from the original patches.

I don't see how these are different from my previous pull requests? If you could elaborate/give examples, that would be appreciated. In regards to reviewing, I don't know how you're approaching it. I do have a local kernel repo (not of the linux-surface one) although that wouldn't be any more readable.

You could diff my patches from 7.0 to 7.1. Do note that I did rebase 7.0 for the same context change as with ipts so it won't show up when diffing.
Here's a diff for your convenience: 7.0-7.1.diff.gz (gzipped because github doesn't allow uploading .diff files)

...

I don't see how these are different from my previous pull requests? If you could elaborate/give examples, that would be appreciated.
...

You're quite right. I hadn't noticed for example this comment in the past. So I assumed when I saw your comments above that there was more to it this time.
That clears it up then.

(I have used the diff method you mention on the patches patches previously, but that was just when I was anticipating them to be just context/offset changes..)

Many thanks Apiznel

Surface Laptop Studio 1 : no issue to report, no issue Surface Book 1 : need this patch

I have tested with the patch on my Surface Laptop Studio 1, don't see any issue

Tests good for me for 7.1.3 , Surface Pro 8, (fedora 44)

(for f44 would need this cherry picking among other outstanding PRs, orthogonaleety@a0b81c4)

7.1.5, Surface Laptop Studio 2, Fedora 43 - So far no issues :)

Tested 7.1.1-7.1.7 on Arch, Surface Pro 9 - all working perfectly

Surface Pro 8 with 7.1.5 on Arch Linux. Rear camera works well. Had to patch the patch as the rear camera image was upside down by default. Rotated 180 degrees and now it works. Quality isn't that great. Better than nothing.

Tested 7.1.8 on AnduinOS, SurfaceBook 2, the front camera works fine, though the image quality seems a bit low, the rear camera shows a green screen. All other functions are working normally. ;)