On 7/14/09 9:08 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
* Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 01:54:48PM +0200, Richard Röjfors wrote:
[...]
+static void tsc2007_free_irq(struct tsc2007 *ts)
+{
+ free_irq(ts->irq, ts);
+ if (cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ts->work)) {
+ /*
+ * Work was pending, therefore we need to enable
+ * IRQ here to balance the disable_irq() done in the
+ * interrupt handler.
+ */
+ enable_irq(ts->irq);
+ }
+}
[...]
-static int tsc2007_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
+static int __devexit tsc2007_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
{
struct tsc2007 *ts = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
- struct tsc2007_platform_data *pdata;
+ struct tsc2007_platform_data *pdata = client->dev.platform_data;
- cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ts->work);
+ free_irq(ts->irq, ts);
+ if (cancel_delayed_work_sync(&ts->work)) {
+ /*
+ * Work was pending, therefore we need to enable
+ * IRQ here to balance the disabel done in the
+ * interrupt handler.
+ */
+ enable_irq(ts->irq);
+ }
Shouldn't this be tsc2007_free_irq(ts) as well?
Is this really good enough? The work function might re-enable the IRQ.
Isn't it better to look at penstate, we know that the IRQ is enabled if
the state is UP, else the IRQ is disabled.
--Richard
--
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
