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@01c22800 {
> > > > compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-lradc-keys";
> > > > reg = <0x01c22800 0x100>;
> > > > interrupts = <31>;
> > > > allwinner,chan0-step = <200>;
> > > >
> > > > #address-cells = <1>;
> > > > #size-cells = <0>;
> > > >
> > > > button@0 {
> > > > reg = <0>; /* your channel index from above */
> > > > linux,code = <115>; /* already used as dt-property */
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > button@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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
