From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (Dmitry Torokhov)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 12:38:31 -0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] input: Add new sun4i-lradc-keys drivers
In-Reply-To: <20140102202022.GK3144@lukather>
References: <1388604610-20380-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com>
 <20140101205603.GA1141@core.coreip.homeip.net>
 <52C5336B.9010903@redhat.com> <1700375.GaI3zFl6RI@phil>
 <52C56D79.1060506@redhat.com> <20140102202022.GK3144@lukather>
Message-ID: <20140102203831.GA3239@core.coreip.homeip.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 09:20:22PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 02:45:29PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > >Also, instead of inventing yet another vendor-specific property, why not re-use
> > >a button binding similar to gpio-keys like:
> > >
> > >        lradc: lradc at 01c22800 {
> > >                compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-lradc-keys";
> > >                reg = <0x01c22800 0x100>;
> > >                interrupts = <31>;
> > >                allwinner,chan0-step = <200>;
> > >
> > >		#address-cells = <1>;
> > >		#size-cells = <0>;
> > >
> > >		button at 0 {
> > >			reg = <0>; /* your channel index from above */
> > >			linux,code = <115>; /* already used as dt-property */
> > >		};
> > >
> > >		button at 1 {
> > >			reg = <1>;
> > >			linux,code = <114>;
> > >		};
> > 
> > Ugh no. Having a vendor specific property which is KISS certainly
> > beats this, both wrt ease of writing dts files as well as wrt the
> > dts parsing code in the driver.
> 
> I'd agree with Heiko here. This is pretty much the same construct
> that's already in use in other input drivers, like gpio-keys.
> 
> This is also something that can really easily be made generic, since
> this is something that is rather common.

Except that button definition from gpio-keys does not use 'reg' property
but rather gpio. I'd rather we did not cram non-applicable attributes
into that definition just to make it "reusable" like that.

I'd be OK with having similar (but not claiming to be the same) mappings
though.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry