From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 18:15:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] input: Add new sun4i-lradc-keys drivers In-Reply-To: <20140102203831.GA3239@core.coreip.homeip.net> 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> <20140102203831.GA3239@core.coreip.homeip.net> Message-ID: <20140103171559.GM3144@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 12:38:31PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > 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. Yes, this is what I was meaning. Sorry if it was not clear enough. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: