From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Grzeschik Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Input: da9052_tsi: remove unnecessary worker Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 00:41:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20150206234124.GF1139@pengutronix.de> References: <1421595368-31203-1-git-send-email-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> <1423220748-21778-1-git-send-email-m.grzeschik@pengutronix.de> <20150206232448.GC29225@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:43159 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752550AbbBFXl1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Feb 2015 18:41:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150206232448.GC29225@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: support.opensource@diasemi.com, kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 03:24:48PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 12:05:48PM +0100, Michael Grzeschik wrote: > > With the datardy irq we get the information if the > > pen got pulled from the screen. This patch changes > > the irq by checking this condition every time instead > > of triggering the worker. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Grzeschik > > --- > > v1 -> v2: - removed adc_on variable > > - added locking for irq switch > > - event reporting in ts_read and irq switchover in datardy_irq > > drivers/input/touchscreen/da9052_tsi.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++---------------- > > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9052_tsi.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9052_tsi.c > > index 5a013bb..c28cfee 100644 > > --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9052_tsi.c > > +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/da9052_tsi.c > > @@ -22,19 +22,24 @@ > > > > #define TSI_PEN_DOWN_STATUS 0x40 > > > > +#define TSI_PEN_UP 1 > > + > > struct da9052_tsi { > > struct da9052 *da9052; > > struct input_dev *dev; > > - struct delayed_work ts_pen_work; > > struct mutex mutex; > > + spinlock_t *lock; > > I am gonna go out on a limb and say that you did not test it. I was testing exactly this. It seems i did miss that pointer and it still worked. Beside that, do you think it would be better to split the patch up? Regards, Michael -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |