[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1328515337.30549.22.camel@dhruva>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:32:17 +0530
From: Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@...tcummins.com>
To: <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/07] ONKEY: OnKey module for DA9052/53 PMIC v1
On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 19:33 +0530, Ashish Jangam wrote:
> > > That doesn't seem to address the concern. You're setting ret in
> > > exactly one place and scheduling the work in exactly one place,
> why
> >> are these two things split?
>
> > schedule_delayed_work() is conditional because it should get invoke
> > when onkey button is pressed and not when released. For this reason
> > onkey event is first queried and work is scheduled only when event
> is
> > present. Now when work is scheduled, onkey event gets queried and
> in
> > absence of the onkey event work will not get schedule again. By this
> > logic I'm able to simulated the release of the onkey button.
>
> You're once more completely missing my point. You've got a
> conditional which detects if the button is pressed in which you set a
> flag which is checked later to see if you should also schedule the
> work. Since the only thing that ever sets that flag is the button
> being pressed having the flag seems pointless, you may as well just
> schedule the work instead of setting the flag.
Do you meant to have something like below
if(..) {
} else {
ret = ret & DA9052_EVENTB_ENONKEY;
input_report_key(.., ret);
...
schedule_delayed_work(..);
}
/*
if(ret)
schedule_delayed_work(..);
*/
but this turns out to be a for ever loop.
--
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