Re: [PATCH 0/2] Qualcomm PM8941 power key driver

Ivan T. Ivanov
2014-10-08T09:50:01Z

On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 11:46 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Tue 07 Oct 02:01 PDT 2014, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Bjorn,
> >
> > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 18:11 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > These patches add dt bindings and a device driver for the power key block in
> > > the Qualcomm PM8941 pmic.
> > >
> > > Courtney Cavin (2):
> > > input: Add Qualcomm PM8941 power key driver
> > > input: pm8941-pwrkey: Add DT binding documentation
> > >
> > > .../bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt | 43 +++++
> > > drivers/input/misc/Kconfig | 12 ++
> > > drivers/input/misc/Makefile | 1 +
> > > drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c | 196 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 4 files changed, 252 insertions(+)
> > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt
> > > create mode 100644 drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c
> >
> > Any reason why we cannot reuse pm8xxx-pwrkey driver? It have been
> > converted to regmap already.
> >
>
> The boilerplate code is the same,

The boilerplate code is almost 100% :-)

> but configuration registers have different
> layout and values written in them are different.

We talk about 3 registers and 2 bit defines. struct regmap_field
should be able to help here.

> The pm8xxx block have separate
> interrupts for press and release events while pm8941 have one interrupt for
> both, so the pm8941 must read out the irq status bits to figure out which event
> it was.

Optional interrupt property? If both are defined hook old ISR, if its
only one hook pm8941 ISR?

>
> Maybe if we introduce some vagueness related to interrupts in the dt binding
> documentation for pm8xxx we could simply reuse that binding.
>

I would not say vagueness, we just can say that pm8941 did not have
second interrupt?

Regards,
Ivan

> Regards,
> Bjorn