From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756547Ab2LMRIu (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:08:50 -0500 Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:59267 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755539Ab2LMRIt (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:08:49 -0500 X-Originating-IP: 108.223.40.66 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:08:45 -0800 From: Guenter Roeck To: anish singh Cc: Linus Walleij , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Grant Likely , Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: export 'debounce' attribute if supported by the gpio chip Message-ID: <20121213170845.GA11145@roeck-us.net> References: <1354775567-17408-1-git-send-email-linux@roeck-us.net> <20121207145955.GA28704@roeck-us.net> <20121207164906.08b65046@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <20121210184819.GA15484@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:37:35AM -0800, anish singh wrote: > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Guenter Roeck > wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 11:04:09AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > >> >> I could imagine declaring the activity request buttons to be "input", but for > >> >> presence detects it is a bit far fetched and would add too much complexity. > >> > > >> > Android tries to address this with its switch class driver, but I'm not > >> > sure its actually got anything over making them input devices. > >> > >> This has actually been merged into the kernel proper as drivers/extcon. > >> > >> So another poke on Günther if this fulfills the needs? > >> > > I'll look into it. Currently I am hampered by a cold which seems to mug my > > brain, and technically by the need to backport extcon to 3.0 (if that is even > > possible) since our chip vendor does not yet support a more recent kernel. > It is very much possible.I have already tried that and it works. Confirmed. Looks like this is going to work for me, so I won't need the gpio patch. Please ignore it. Thanks, Guenter