[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130710165509.GC22992@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 09:55:09 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@...ev.co.uk>
Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
Alan Bowens <Alan.Bowens@...el.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Meerwald <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/51] Input: atmel_mxt_ts - Add shutdown function
On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 10:56:06AM +0100, Nick Dyer wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 01:48:57PM +0100, Nick Dyer wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@...ev.co.uk>
> >> Acked-by: Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>
> >
> > Why is this needed?
>
> The patch disables the interrupt handler on shutdown.
>
> One of our customers reported a bug caused by input events being generated
> during shutdown (for example if the user was touching the device whilst it
> was turning off), which was solved by putting in this change.
What kind of bug? Could you please be more precise?
>
> However, now you've drawn my attention to it again, it seems to me that
> probably a better thing for us to be doing would be to power off the
> touchscreen controller here, and let the interrupt disable be handled by
> core code - do you agree?
We'd be powering off everything in a moment anyway, no? Or is there a
concern that the device will stay powered up even if the system is in off
state?
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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