On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 11:20:44AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:45:01PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > This revision reworks the close() implementation, hopefully more > > robustly, which should address the main thrust of your comments > > previously. As I said in my previous e-mail the restrictions on > > enable_irq() seem reasonable to me, the thing that's nasty here is that > > we need to enable and disable the IRQs at all. > > It'd be good to get something for this into 2.6.39. At the very least > this version of the patch avoids issues while the device is open and > keeps any issues in close() which is an improvement. If this approach > isn't going to be OK please let me know so I can look into alternatives. Mark, Sorry for the delay. I am just not comfortable with a touchcsreen requiring essentially 2 threads to operate (2 IRQ threads, 2 works). I was thinking about converting to a thread with a state machine and 2 non-threaded IRQs disabling themselves and waking the thread up. Do you think something like that would work? Thanks. -- 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
