From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: gpio-keys - allow platform to specify exact irq flags Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:37:24 -0800 Message-ID: <20091201003724.GC3906@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <87hbsd2b17.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> <20091130082737.GA27979@gw.healthdatacare.com> <87638rlof9.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f188.google.com ([209.85.216.188]:51462 "EHLO mail-px0-f188.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753148AbZLAAhX (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:37:23 -0500 Received: by pxi26 with SMTP id 26so3326965pxi.21 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:37:30 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87638rlof9.fsf@tac.ki.iif.hu> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Ferenc Wagner Cc: Mika Westerberg , "linux-input@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 09:59:06PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote: > Mika Westerberg writes: > > > If it suits you, I would go with the "can_disable" -field in the > > struct gpio_keys_button. This way it should be possible to extend > > gpio-keys in future to support multiple buttons sharing the single IRQ > > and it also works for us. > > Why not simply release the corresponding IRQ? No new fields are needed > in the platform data, you don't even have to change the IRQ flags. Or > do I miss something again? It would work but with one unpleasant possibility - of you release IRQ some other device might "steal" it. I don't think it is a good style for a device to fail due to resources conflict if it was working to begin with. -- Dmitry