Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:43:55 -0600 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | Re: PS/2 mouse latency was Re: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [DATAPOINT] kernels and latencies |
| |
Alan Cox writes: > > > The PS/2 hardware requires delays, but it does not require that > > > interrupts are off for the entire period to my knowledge. > > > > OK, but there's still the locking. We can't just have the interrupt > > handler frob the controller while elsewhere we're poking it, can we? > > Indeed we cannot. We need to do locking but we need to do it a > different way.
Which leads to my other question: can we "ignore" the interrupt (i.e. just update a flag somewhere) for later processing in a process context?
Or can we block the interrupt? And hope no-one else is sharing it...
Or do you have some other scheme in mind?
Regards,
Richard.... Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |