On Tuesday 03 January 2017 10:06:41 Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Dec 29 2016 or thereabouts, Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Thursday 29 December 2016 22:09:32 Michał Kępień wrote: > > > Also, just to make sure we do not overthink this, I understand that > > > not every unit of the models from the whitelist has an > > > accelerometer, correct? In other words, could we perhaps skip the > > > part where we are making sure the SMO88xx ACPI device is there? > > > > Good question... At least for E6440 I'm did not thing it was possible to > > configure notebook without "3 axes free fall sensor". > > > > But! In BIOS SETUP it is possible to disable free fall sensor. I will > > try to disable it there and will check what happen. My guess is that it > > will be disabled in ACPI. > > Just adding my 2 cents regarding the whitelist and interaction between > those 2 drivers. I find this very fragile to have only one available > /dev/freefall node and to rely on the fairness of each driver to not bind > one. It would have been much simpler to have /dev/freefallXX and a > proper misc class device for it. This way, we don't even need to > mutually exclude the drivers. But this is already 8 years old code, so I > guess userspace expects this... (why isn't that using the input subsystem > at all?). > > Cheers, > Benjamin. > I think there is no problem with more /dev/freefall devices. With these Dell drivers it should not happen as only one driver can request IRQ which is associated with /dev/freefall. And /dev/freefal is registered after acquiring IRQ. But... there are other problems with it as wrote in previous emails. -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
