On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 09:09:38AM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > On Tuesday 24 May 2016 06:48:41 Andrei Borzenkov wrote: > > 24.05.2016 02:03, Gabriele Mazzotta пишет: > > > On 24/05/2016 00:22, Pali Rohár wrote: ... > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > > > +static void ACPI_SYSTEM_XFACE rbtn_acpi_clear_flag(void *context) > > I would rename this function to rbtn_clear_suspended_flag. > ... > > > + /* > > > + * Upon resume, some BIOSes autonomously send an ACPI notification You can drop "autonomously", it reads a bit awkwardly, and doesn't add any information. > > > + * that triggers an unwanted input event. In order to ignore it, > > > + * we use a flag that we set at suspend and clear once we have > > > + * received the extra notification. Since ACPI notifications are > > > + * delivered asynchronously to drivers, we clear the flag from the > > > + * workqueue used to deliver the notifications. This should be enough > > > + * to guarantee that the flag is cleared only after we received the > > > + * extra notification, if any. > > > + */ > > > > "guarantee" is rather strong word here. We really do not know anything > > how and when these notifications are generated by firmware, so can only > > hope. But otherwise this explains what this patch intends to do (so that > > even me finally understood it :) > > Yes, thats better. > > > > + status = acpi_os_execute(OSL_NOTIFY_HANDLER, > > > + rbtn_acpi_clear_flag, rbtn_data); > > > + if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) > > > + rbtn_data->suspended = false; > > And here rbtn_clear_suspended_flag(rbtn_data) call instead direct > assignment. > I'm dropping this from the queue, and awaiting an updated version with the requested changes (these from Pali, and the issue raised about "guarantee" being too strong). Thanks, -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe platform-driver-x86" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
