Re: [PATCH 1/1] input: keyboard: Set configuration registers

[Shridhar Rasal <srasal-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On 02/01/2012 01:17 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:29:35AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote at Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:09 PM:
>>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:25:59PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:17:54PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote at Friday, December 09, 2011 2:25 PM:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 09, 2011 12:10:43 PM Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>> Shridhar Rasal wrote at Friday, December 09, 2011 12:29 AM:
>>>>>>>> To: dmitry.torokhov-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
>>>>>>>> Cc: rydberg-Hk7bIW8heu4wFerOooGFRg@public.gmane.org; Stephen Warren; Rakesh Iyer;
>>>>>>>> linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; linux- input-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org;
>>>>>>>> linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; Shridhar Rasal Subject: [PATCH 1/1] input:
>>>>>>>> keyboard: Set configuration registers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Set only REQUIRED row and column configuration register to
>>>>>>>> PROPER values to avoid continuously generating KBC input events.
>>>>>>>> -Use *en* field in pin_cfg, to check GPIO_x_ROW_EN register
>>>>>>>> should be set or clear.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shridhar Rasal<srasal-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>>> I wondered if num==0 could be used instead of a new en field, but 0 is a
>>>>>>> valid row/column number, so no. As such,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren<swarren-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>>> Can we pass in number of pin_cfg instances in pdata and simply do not
>>>>>> mention unneeded pins instead?
>>>>> IIUC, the array is currently a fixed size (based on the set of pins
>>>>> Supported by the KBC), hence that won't work; there's an entry for each
>>>>> pin saying which row/column it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I suppose if we were to change the structure of the pdata to be:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct tegra_kbc_pin_cfg {
>>>>>      bool is_row;
>>>>>      u8 row_col_id;
>>>>>      u8 pin_id;
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> Then struct tegra_kbc_platform_data could indeed have a pointer to a
>>>>> variable-sized array of these, which would avoid the "en" member.
>>>>>
>>>> How about we change bool to enum instead, like in the patch below?
>>> *ping*
>> That's conceptually fine by me. I was assuming you were asking Rakesh...
> Everyone... Anyone ;)
>
>> I'd rather PIN_CFG_IGNORE was the first enum, so it gets value 0, or this
>> probably won't solve the original issue?
> The benefit of current definition is that it is compatible with old
> ones using bool...
>
> Thanks.
Sorry for delay in response.
I am OK with new definition. Agree, makes compatible with old definitions.
Thanks!