On 10/12/07, Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:50 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On 10/12/07, Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 10:49 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > Hi Bryan, > > > > > > > > On 10/12/07, Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > + > > > [snip] > > > > > + > > > > > +static void ad7142_close(struct input_dev *dev) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + free_irq(CONFIG_BFIN_JOYSTICK_IRQ_PFX, ad7142_interrupt); > > > > > + kthread_stop(ad7142_task); > > > > > > > > Don't you need to write something over i2c to shut the devoce off? > > > > What stops it from continuing to generate interrupts? > > > > > > > Actually, I am going to use "completion" to replace the whole > > > wait_interrupt_xxx and intr_flag things which original from Aubrey. How > > > do you think of that? > > > > > > > I don't think it is a very good idea - for me completion is one-time > > deal. You use it and then you are done. How about firing a work from > > interrupt and either rely on the default workqueue (keventd) or create > > your own to execute it? > > > > completion is a wrapper of workqueue and simpler to use. > my method: > 1. In kthread: > do { > |_______|_______wait_for_completion(&ad7142_completion); > |_______|_______ad7142_decode(); > |_______|_______enable_irq(CONFIG_BFIN_JOYSTICK_IRQ_PFX); > |_______} while (!kthread_should_stop()); > > 2. In irq handler will fire "complete(&ad7142_completion);" > > This is simpler and understand easier >
You also need to re-initialize completion every time you done processing in kthread otherwise you will be constantly doing ad7142_decode(). Plus, how are you going to stop kthread (completion may not be signalled for a long time if nobody touches the joystick). -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/