On 11/3/06, Vojtech Pavlik <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 12:56:02AM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday 30 October 2006 09:22, Dave Neuer wrote:
> > On 10/30/06, Dave Neuer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm missing something, (well actually I'm sure I'm missing
> > > somethng). Looking at the code again, it's unclear to me why there is
> > > even a call to the ISR in i8042_aux_write, since the latter function
> > > already calls i8042_read_data.
> > >
> >
> > Whoops, sorry. I meant i8042_command, which is called by
> > i8042_aux_write before the call to i8042_interrupt, already calls
> > i8042_read_data.
> >
>
> It only calls i8042_read_data() if command is supposed to return data.
> Neither I8042_CMD_AUX_SEND nor I8042_CMD_MUX_SEND wait fotr data to come
> back.
>
> Anyway, I removed call to i8042_interrupt() from i8042_aux_write() because
> it is indeed unnecessary.
It was there because some older i8042's will report an error byte (=>
data) even though no device is connected, not just set error flags.
The unflushed byte in the FIFO then caused problems later on.
It may be that now it'll get disposed of correctly, I haven't looked at
the code for a while.
By the time serio ports are registered and there are potential users
of i8042_aux_write() we already requested AUX IRQ and I believe any
arriving data should be automatically disposed through irq handler. It
wasn't the case before, when we postponed requesting IRQ until the
port was opened...
--
Dmitry
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
