Re: [PATCH] input: gpio_keys: polling mode support

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:17:07AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 08:29:51PM +0100, Alexander Clouter wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > -EDONTCARE? :(
> > 
> You could try Cc-ing akpm on the next version, so it at least doesn't get
> lost.
> 
> > >  
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_INPUT_POLLDEV) || defined(CONFIG_INPUT_POLLDEV_MODULE)
> > > +static void gpio_keys_poll(struct input_polled_dev *dev)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct gpio_keys_drvdata *ddata = dev->private;
> > > +	int i;
> > > +
> > > +	for (i = 0; i < ddata->n_buttons; i++) {
> > > +		struct gpio_button_data *bdata = &ddata->data[i];
> > > +		struct gpio_keys_button *button = bdata->button;
> > > +
> > > +		gpio_handle_button_event(button, bdata);
> > > +	}
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> This gets back to why I opted to select the polldev stuff in the first
> place, to avoid the total mess that all of the ifdeffery causes without
> it. It's also inconsistent, as you have the poll interval tested openly
> in some places and always defined, while the poll dev itself is always
> under ifdef due to the input layer definitions.
> 
> Personally I've never found the argument that the polling stuff should be
> optional very convincing. It's a reasonable mode of operation for devices
> that don't have IRQs bound to GPIOs, and having to depend on the platform
> to select random bits of input subsystem infrastructure to support a
> driver that may or may not be enabled at all is ugly at best.

Let me play a tad with it and if I can't untangle it reasonably I'll
just dig up old Paul's patch.

-- 
Dmitry