Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > Well, we deliberately chose not to do that since that would lead to a > gazillion of kernel threads if you have lots of sensor drivers. > > Sensor drivers that are "good citizens" should probably continue to > use the sensor thread. Butfor things like asmc(4) that handle a > largish bundle of sensors, a separate thread would be fine. And I > suspect that thread could run unlocked.
Of course. I meant this should be done in drivers dealing with hardware which is like this. Some sensor drivers, not all. The proposed solution of replacing delay() with tsleep() is unsatisfactory, since rather than sleeping a private thread, it will be sleeping the sensor thread and delay *all* the other sensors as well.
