On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 01:57:16 +0800
Bryan Wu <cooloney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
a little thing..
> +static void ad7879_disable(struct ad7879 *ts)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (ts->disabled)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ts->lock, flags);
> + ts->disabled = 1;
> + disable_irq(ts->bus->irq);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ts->lock, flags);
> +
> + cancel_work_sync(&ts->work);
> +
> + if (del_timer_sync(&ts->timer))
> + ad7879_ts_event_release(ts);
> +
> + /* we know the chip's in lowpower mode since we always
> + * leave it that way after every request
> + */
> +}
> +
> +static void ad7879_enable(struct ad7879 *ts)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + if (!ts->disabled)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&ts->lock, flags);
> + ts->disabled = 0;
> + enable_irq(ts->bus->irq);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ts->lock, flags);
> +}
It would looks less racy if ts->disabled was tested while the lock was held.
Also, it would be more grammatically pleasing if ad7879_destruct() was
called ad7879_destroy(), but the current spelling will still compile
and run :)
--
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
