If one of the callbacks called from fpi_imgdev_deactivate_complete()
was reactivating the device, then we would be overwriting whichever
"action" got set in the callback, leading to
fpi_imgdev_activate_complete() failing as it doesn't handle the "none"
action.
Reset the action before calling the callbacks.
If a USB transfer is started but not completed in one go, the wdata we
pass to continue_write_regv() will already be freed by the time we try
to use it again.
Only free() the wdata on error, or when the USB transfer is completed.
Closes: #180
The state was always AWAIT_FINGER and it was never used by any driver
(except for error checking). So remove it, in particular as a correct
state change will be done after activation anyway.
The only driver with code that actually did anything based on this was
the URU4000 driver. However, all it did was an explicit state change
execution. This is not necessary, as the state_change handler is called
anyway (i.e. we now only write the AWAIT_FINGER register once rather
than twice).
Manual changes plus:
@ init @
identifier driver_name;
identifier activate_func;
@@
struct fp_img_driver driver_name = {
...,
.activate = activate_func,
...,
};
@ remove_arg @
identifier dev;
identifier state;
identifier init.activate_func;
@@
activate_func (
struct fp_img_dev *dev
- , enum fp_imgdev_state state
)
{
<...
- if (state != IMGDEV_STATE_AWAIT_FINGER_ON) { ... }
...>
}
The driver was never ported to the new asynchronous model, meaning it
has been defunct since some time in 2008. Remove the driver, as
seemingly no one has complained about this and we have no proper way to
even verify a port is correct.
libfprint already uses G_DEBUG_HERE in a lot of places which requires
GLib 2.50. Also add the appropriate defines so that usage of newer API
will result in warnings.
The upekts driver needs upek_proto.c while the upektc driver does not.
Move the corresponding source file entries so that both drivers compile
standalone.
The only API user currently seems to be the examples. fprintd has its
own storage and that will be a good idea in general.
So deprecate the API, we'll need to find a different solution for the
examples eventually.
Laurent Bigonville