Hi Jonathan, On Sunday 15 September 2013 18:10:18 Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 09/15/13 11:56, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On 09/11/13 09:18, Juergen Beisert wrote: > >> For battery driven systems it is a very bad idea to collect the > >> touchscreen data within a kernel busy loop. > >> > >> This change uses the features of the hardware to delay and accumulate > >> samples in hardware to avoid a high interrupt and CPU load. > >> > >> Note: this is only tested on an i.MX23 SoC yet. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Beisert <[email protected]> > >> CC: [email protected] > >> CC: [email protected] > >> CC: Marek Vasut <[email protected]> > >> CC: Fabio Estevam <[email protected]> > >> CC: Jonathan Cameron <[email protected]> > > > > While this driver is placed in IIO within staging at the moment, these > > changes are definitely input related. Hence I have cc'd Dmitry and the > > input list. > > > > I am personaly a little uncomfortable that we have such a complex bit of > > input code sat within an IIO driver but such is life. > > The logic in here looks reasonable to me. I am far from a specialist in how > these touch screens are normally handled though. > > One thing to note is that you really want to get a proposed device tree > spec out asap as that can take longer to review than the driver. If you > are proposing to do that as a future patch, then take into account that > you'll need to ensure these are the defaults if it is not specified in the > device tree for ever more (which is more painful than hammering out he > device tree stuff now!) > ...
Will do. Regards, Juergen -- Pengutronix e.K. | Juergen Beisert | Linux Solutions for Science and Industry | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
