Hi Dmitry,
>> + if (int_stat & SINGLE_TAP) {
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_X_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_single(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_x);
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_Y_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_single(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_y);
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_Z_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_single(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_z);
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (int_stat & DOUBLE_TAP) {
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_X_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_double(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_x);
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_Y_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_double(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_y);
>> + if (tap_stat & TAP_Z_SRC)
>> + adxl34x_report_key_double(ac->input,
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap_z);
>> + }
>
>Hmm.. this generates loads of syncs... how about having tap codes in an
>array and do:
>
>void send_key_events(ac, pdata, status, press)
>{
> for (i = 0; i < num, i++) {
> if (status & (1 << i))
> input_report_key(ac->input,
> pdata->ev_code_tap[i], press);
> }
>}
>
>void do_tap(ac, pdata, status)
>{
> send_key_events(ac, pdata, int_stat, true);
> input_sync(ac->input);
> send_key_events(ac, pdata, int_stat, false);
>}
>
>And you'd do:
>
> if (int_stat & (SINGLE_TAP|DOUBLE_TAP) {
> do_tap(ac, pdata, status);
>
> if (int_stat & DOUBLE_TAP)
> do_tap(ac, pdata, status);
> }
>
>?
That's a great idea - Thanks!
>> +void adxl34x_disable(struct adxl34x *ac)
>> +{
>> + mutex_lock(&ac->mutex);
>> + if (!ac->disabled && ac->opened) {
>> + ac->disabled = 1;
>> + cancel_work_sync(&ac->work);
>
>If you actually cancel the work before it runs you will leave interrupt
>disabled for good. You need to check the return core and re-enable
>interrupt if needed.
Good catch - will fix it.
-Michael
--
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
