On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 11:47:25AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 7/25/05, Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you look at _my_ version, you'll notice that it doesn't use the > > class interface stuff. A previous version of it did, and this seems > > to be what the collie stuff is based upon. > > I was only commenting on something that was posted on LKML for > inclusion into input subtree that I am interested in. I don't track > ARM development that closely. Where can we see your version, please?
See earlier in this thread, 24th July. > > What I suggest is that the collie folk need to update their driver > > to my version so that we don't have two different forks of the same > > driver in existance. Then we can start discussing whether things > > should be using kthreads or not. > > Do you have any reason why, generally speaking, threads should not be > used? They seem to clean up code in drivers quite a bit. It depends what the reasoning is behind them. The touchscreen driver is threaded because it wants to collect touschreen samples independently of the availability of a user thread. Moreover, obtaining ADC samples needs a sleeping context since it may take a while to complete. However, putting all UCB interrupts into a thread does not make sense to me - if we allow UCB interrupts to sleep, it allows one UCB interrupt to be processed at the exclusion of the others. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
