On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:52:48AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Nov 07 2016 or thereabouts, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 02:10:40PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > > > The current SMBus Host Notify implementation relies on .alert() to > > > relay its notifications. However, the use cases where SMBus Host > > > Notify is needed currently is to signal data ready on touchpads. > > > > > > This is closer to an IRQ than a custom API through .alert(). > > > Given that the 2 touchpad manufacturers (Synaptics and Elan) that > > > use SMBus Host Notify don't put any data in the SMBus payload, the > > > concept actually matches one to one. > > > > I see the advantages. The only question I have: What if we encounter > > devices in the future which do put data in the payload? Can this > > mechanism be extended to handle that? > > I guess I haven't convinced you with my answer. Is there anything I can > do to get this series in v4.10 or do you prefer waiting for v4.11? I consider this v4.10 material. I was thinking a little about how to not lose data with consecutive interrupts but then -EBUSY came along. Nonetheless, it looks to me like the proper path to follow... Thanks, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
