On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 5:36 PM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 05:25:23PM -0600, Adam Ford wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:43 PM Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Adam, > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 4:28 PM Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am using IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING for the 2117A. Is that correct? For > > > > my touchscreen, the IRQ line is low until a touch is detected, so I > > > > assume we want to capure on the rising edge. > > > > > > That is correct for the 2117A, as far as I know. I am using the same > > > setting. > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding Dmitry's patch, > > > > Is it a good idea to use msleep in an IRQ? It seems like using the > > > > schedule_delayed_work() call seems like it will get in and get out of > > > > the ISR faster. > > > > > > > > If we use msleep and scan again, isn't it possible to starve other processes? > > > > > > I believe using msleep() is ok because this is not a "real" interrupt handler, > > > but a threaded one. It runs in a regular kernel thread, with its interrupt > > > turned off (but all other interrupts remain enabled). Its interrupt is > > > re-enabled automatically after the threaded handler returns. > > > > > > See > > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/include/linux/interrupt.h#L50 > > > > > > > > @@ -268,7 +278,7 @@ static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data) > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > touch = ili210x_report_events(priv, touchdata); > > > > > - keep_polling = touch || chip->continue_polling(touchdata); > > > > > + keep_polling = chip->continue_polling(touchdata, touch); > > > > > if (keep_polling) > > > > > > > > Why not just check the value of touch instead of invoking the function > > > > pointer which takes the value of touch in as a parameter? > > > > > > > > > > The value of touch must be checked inside the callback, because > > > some variants use it to decide if they should poll again, and > > > some do not, such as the ili211x. > > > > That makes sense. > > > > > > If I have misinterpreted your suggestion, could you perhaps > > > express it in C, so I can understand better? > > > > You explained it. > > I'm good. > > OK, I refreshed the branch with fixes and a couple of new patches. It is > on top of 5.3 now. If this works for you guys I will be merging it for > 5.5. I will test it tomorrow on a 2117a and reply with results. I am very excited to see this integrated. adam > > Thanks. > > -- > Dmitry
