Re: [PATCH v2] Input: silead - Do not try to directly access the GPIO when using ACPI pm

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 14:57 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 08-03-17 19:25, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 18:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 08-03-17 12:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 12:27 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > On 08-03-17 11:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 10:08 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > > > > On 07-03-17 14:55, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > Yeah. The attached patch you sent is fine by me.
> 
> Ok, I've slighty modified it to also change the KBUILD_MODNAME
> passed to gpiod_count to NULL, I know that your:
> "Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()"
> patch: https://bitbucket.org/andy-shev/linux/commits/13b5b3e1b178fbc9b
> 2ecaa915715f3bb8a024f88
> 
> Also does that, but that depends on the rest of your gpiolib changes,
> where as this patch can be merged right now, to prepare things
> for your gpiolib changes landing. So I'm going to send the
> patch with the extra s/KBUILD_MODNAME/NULL/ to Dmitry for
> merging into input/next. You may want to rebase your
> "Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()"
> patch on top, that also will make it cleaner as now it
> no longer needs to do the s/KBUILD_MODNAME/NULL/.

Go ahead!

I pushed few hours ago updated version of the branch where I applied
that your previous patch and reverted mine regarding to soc-button-array 
and surface3_button drivers.

I will rebase my stuff on your new patch.

> > > > > > > I think that "extcon: int3496: Add GPIO ACPI mapping
> > > > > > > table"
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > a similar change (I haven't tested it yet).
> > > 
> > > So I assume you want to do the same (pass NULL as con-id to
> > > gpiod_get_index()) for the extcon-in3496 driver or do you want
> > > to keep the GPIO ACPI mapping table there?
> > 
> > A slightly preferable table variant (needs to be fixed I guess)
> > because
> > initial one used to have different labels.
> 
> Ok, I will test with the acpi-mapping table then and if necessary
> create a fixup patch for it and send that to you.

Sounds like a plan!

Since extcon patches are landed already mainstream it might make sense
to send it as usual to all maintainers.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy