lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] backlight dimmer
Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:30:55 +0100
> "lists@antonello.org" <lists@antonello.org> wrote:
>
>> Ok,
>> now checkpatch.pl only complains about a missing signed-off-by.
>> Is this ok for review?
>
>
> hi,
>
> when going over your patch.. is there a reason you introduce yet
> another timeout infrastructure? Is there something wrong with the
> existing ones that maybe should be fixed instead?
> Either way.. please put justification for such new mechanism in the
> patch changelog....
>
> Greetings,
> Arjan van de Ven
>

hi,

i don't think there are similar infrastructures. This timeout is
not quite a timer.

The timeout starts counting when timeout_touch() is first called. At
this point the start() function is executed in non-atomic context.
Then either it is reset if timeout_touch() is called in time (and
thus starts to count again). Else it triggers, and executes the
trigger() function in non-atomic context and it stays idle unless
timeout_touch() is called again.

The non-atomic context is needed to use backlight.c mutexes and
that is enabled with the use of workqueues.

I don't mean to add some new infrastructure to the base kernel, but
it seemed a general functionality to me. In fact it may also be fully
included in backlight.c. Since backlight.h is in include/linux, i was
forced to put timeout.h in include/linux also. But this is just
a temporary fix.

jacopo

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-28 23:13    [W:0.256 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site