Hi, 2008/5/7, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 08:21:27PM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > > Hi, Dmitry, > > > > 2008/5/6, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>: > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 03:20:48PM +0400, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > > Sometimes gpio line can generate jitter while transitioning from one state > > > > to another one. Implement a way to filter such noise during transitions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we need to do both count and interval and you don't > > > really need to track state... What do you think about the patch below? > > > > I would say it's pretty different from what I meant. You patch only > > delays the decision about the status of the pin while mine does really > > "average" the status > > of the pin. E.g. in my tosa PDA the headphones jack is a bit noisy. So > > the input layer shouldn't react to the noise. > > > The userspace will not see the new event until gpio stabilizes, > that's all that is needed. > > > > And with your patch each > > time the GPIO irq is generated the input layer will get input_sync. > > > That I think I need to fix in input core. I think we used to not reset > sync flag on ignored events. I'm not sure of the current state of it. At least it was generating syncs some time ago. If you say, input layer won't generate unnecessary syncs, it's OK to merge your version of the patch. -- With best wishes Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
