On Thu, 2017-03-30 at 14:54 +0200, Willy TARREAU wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 02:27:06PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 11:01 +0200, Willy TARREAU wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:26:07AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven > > > wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Willy TARREAU <wtarreau@haprox > > > > y.co > > > > m> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:19:43PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Andy Shevchenko > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-03-24 at 15:19 +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Andy Shevchenko > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In fact here the output signals should be seen as a shared bus > > > with > > > multiple > > > chip select signals. Note that in some designs it's even possible > > > that > > > pressing > > > multiple buttons will cause crap to be sent to the LCD by short- > > > circuiting > > > the lines (if no diodes are used) but it might be acceptable for > > > many > > > designs, > > > especially the DIY field where the principle is "don't do it". > > > > So, summarizing the comments are we okay to proceed or there is a > > clear > > objection? > > I don't know all the impacts, but as long as it continues to work I'm > totally fine with seeing the code being changed and refactored. It > already got a nice improvement with this series. Furthermore I can > occasionally give it a try if that helps :-)
It will. I'm about to send v2 with tags applied so far. -- Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> Intel Finland Oy
