RE: [PATCH v9 2/9] Input: goodix - reset device at init

Tirdea, Irina
2015-10-19T14:32:34Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of
> mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com
> Sent: 14 October, 2015 16:44
> To: Dmitry Torokhov
> Cc: Tirdea, Irina; Bastien Nocera; Aleksei Mamlin; Karsten Merker; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; Mark Rutland; Purdila, Octavian; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/9] Input: goodix - reset device at init
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 02:18:20PM +0300, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:23:03PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > I understand why one might use acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios() to augment
> > > data in ACPI, however here we have completely different issue: driver
> > > that expects named gpios gets returned gpio that has nothing to do with
> > > what it requested, because gpiolib acpi code always falls back to
> > > unnamed gpio if it does not find named gpio. That can be acceptable if
> > > driver uses the same con_id for all requests to gpiolib, but is not
> > > working when driver supplies different con_ids.
> >
> > Right, the ACPI fallback ignores con_id completely and uses only the
> > index.
> >
> > AFAIK there is only one driver using ACPI _CRS index method:
> > sdhci-[acpi|pci].c. If we can convert that to use acpi_dev_add_driver_gpios()
> > to feed names for card detection GPIOs, I think we can remove the
> > fallback alltogether in favor of named GPIOs for ACPI.
>
> Nah, there seems to be several drivers relying on this already :-/

Would it be possible to add an optional parameter to the GPIO API
to specify whether we want to fall back to indexed GPIOs for ACPI?

> --
> 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