RE: adp5588-keys datasheet and driver question

[Christoph Fritz <chf.fritz@googlemail.com>]

On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 21:12 +0000, Hennerich, Michael wrote:
> Christoph Fritz wrote on 2011-12-03:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> >  I had a look at the adp5588-keys driver and its datasheet.
> > There are some "slips of the pen" in it (adp5588 Rev.b):
> 
> Hi Christoph,
> 
> Good catch - however typos in datasheets shouldn't be discussed here, unless it
> influences the vital state of this driver.
> 
> >   - Page 8, Table 12, "E4 pressed" refers to binary 1000 instead of 100
> 
> Not only this obvious one - all others are wrong as well...
> 
> >   - Page 17, Table 22, Register Descriptions are mostly wrong
> 
> What's wrong with Table 22?

The column "Register Description" says "Key Event Register B [..]" for
register names KEY_EVENTD to KEY_EVENTJ. But for row KEY_EVENTA to
KEY_EVENTC it seems to be correct.

> 
> 
> > Another thing I'm curious about is in adp5588_report_events():
> >
> > int key = adp5588_read(kpad->client, Key_EVENTA + i); int key_val = key
> > & KEY_EV_MASK; [...] input_report_key(kpad->input, kpad->keycode[key_val
> > - 1], key & KEY_EV_PRESSED);
> >
> > Why is there a -1 for key_val?
> 
> Key_val == 0, is not a valid event code!
> The part emits 1..80 for keys and 97..114 for GPI events.

ah, so mark ² below Table 22 is correct :)

> So bottom line - the driver is correct but Table 12 is completely wrong.

Thanks,
 -- Christoph


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html