Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAMz4kuKb8g5dAu5WQ847CODtVgJQBa_svbeQGGDsYpCjipBp_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6c53b9ccfd4a56fc1b00e243bb9e7cae9e124932.1518155780.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <CAKdAkRQ6+9=GUJfoMT_gtwS8DqWKeH9FAqPG2BFzL9GPbPNB4w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMz4kuKb8g5dAu5WQ847CODtVgJQBa_svbeQGGDsYpCjipBp_g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:03:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcJdYh8fKpqkRXxegRkESaN2Cgxybyei1NVwf_1C7rhwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: gpio_keys: Add level trigger support for GPIO keys
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        stephen lu <lumotuwe@gmail.com>,
        Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>,
        Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com>,
        Kate Stewart <kstewart@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Philippe Ombredanne <pombredanne@nexb.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:23 AM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 9 February 2018 at 14:39, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:08 PM, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On some platforms (such as Spreadtrum platform), the GPIO keys can only
>>> be triggered by level type.
>>
>> How do you stop the interrupt from re-triggering as long as the key
>> stays pressed?
>
> We will set the level type irq handler as handle_level_irq(), in this
> function, it will mask and ack the irq firstly.

Wouldn't be ambiguous?

1. User presses the key ->
  a) we got edge followed by level signaling;
  b) IRQ core masks line, calls handler, ACKs, unmasks;
  c) somewhere here Press Event is sent;
  d) we still have level... We get IRQ fired again? But see 1. It
obviously not the case.
2. User releases the key ->
  ...

So, the main question if I understood Dmitry correctly is the period
in time where IRQ line should be masked on one hand, and on the other
it will guarantee that user didn't release-press cylcle.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko