Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 28 Oct 2007 23:09:53 +0100 | From | jack@antonell ... | Subject | Re: [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/
| |