[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1245942355.20530.141.camel@jani-desktop>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 18:05:55 +0300
From: Jani Nikula <ext-jani.1.nikula@...ia.com>
To: ext Alek Du <alek.du@...el.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Trilok Soni <soni.trilok@...il.com>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"ben-linux@...ff.org" <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]input: Change timer function to workqueue for gpio_keys
driver
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 16:52 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 16:08 +0200, ext Alek Du wrote:
> > If you schedule the timer when you decide it "stabilized", the final gpio_get_value()
> > could still return 0 in the timer handler, if the key released at that time. So your previous
> > "stabilized" state is useless.
>
> True, gpio_keys_report_event should also compare the value to the
> previous state and bail out if it's unchanged. Something along the lines
> of:
>
> @@ -46,6 +46,10 @@ static void gpio_keys_report_event(struct work_struct *work)
> unsigned int type = button->type ?: EV_KEY;
> int state = (gpio_get_value(button->gpio) ? 1 : 0) ^ button->active_low;
>
> + if (state == bdata->state)
> + return;
> + bdata->state = state;
Actually scrap that, the input layer already ignores events with no
state changes, right?
> Debouncing should also completely ignore a single spike shorter than
> debounce_interval. Admittedly gpio-keys was flawed, but please consider
> a change like above which should fix that.
Same here, gpio-keys did ignore spikes shorter than debounce_interval.
BR,
Jani.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists