From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Bill Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.com>
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: evdev: Add a read() callback
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 09:45:08 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110226094507.GA13253@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikWA3Vsa2O4_yi1L78_xX18_7WqVKqhTaD1-6Wm@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:46:24PM -0600, Bill Gatliff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 10:33 PM, Mark Brown
> <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> > But surely the most obvious solution here is to standardise a rate
> > control interface?
> Yes, and no. A standardized rate control interface would deal with
> the rate control problem, but leave the synchronization problem
> unsolved.
The main source of the problem with delayed readings was that
applications weren't blocking waiting for events. If applications block
waiting for events then the data will be delivered to them promptly.
For cases where multiple readings need to be synced IIO looks like the
way forward.
> > The problem you're trying to solve is also an issue for really common
> > and standard things like touchscreens and polled switches/keys (the
> > latter of which you mentioned in your mail) which are used by standard
> > applications.
> The existing "polled switch" implementation sets up a throttled
> polling loop in kernel code. The "polled switch" that I was thinking
> of when I wrote the essay for the commit was "a switch that is polled
> each time read() gets called". I should have been clearer--- and
> probably picked a different name. :)
It's the same thing, though - I'd really expect it to be handled by the
same code in kernel.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-26 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1298297930-3937-1-git-send-email-bgat@billgatliff.com>
2011-02-22 0:23 ` [PATCH] input: evdev: Add a read() callback Mark Brown
2011-02-22 4:07 ` Bill Gatliff
2011-02-22 4:33 ` Mark Brown
2011-02-22 13:13 ` Jonathan Cameron
2011-02-26 2:49 ` Bill Gatliff
2011-02-26 2:46 ` Bill Gatliff
2011-02-26 9:45 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2011-02-21 4:42 Bill Gatliff
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110226094507.GA13253@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=bgat@billgatliff.com \
--cc=linux-embedded@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).