Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:47:16 +0530 | From | Shridhar Rasal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/1] input: keyboard: Set configuration registers |
| |
On 02/01/2012 01:17 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:29:35AM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote at Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:09 PM: >>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 07:25:59PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:17:54PM -0800, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote at Friday, December 09, 2011 2:25 PM: >>>>>> On Friday, December 09, 2011 12:10:43 PM Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>>> Shridhar Rasal wrote at Friday, December 09, 2011 12:29 AM: >>>>>>>> To: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com >>>>>>>> Cc: rydberg@euromail.se; Stephen Warren; Rakesh Iyer; >>>>>>>> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- input@vger.kernel.org; >>>>>>>> linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org; Shridhar Rasal Subject: [PATCH 1/1] input: >>>>>>>> keyboard: Set configuration registers >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Set only REQUIRED row and column configuration register to >>>>>>>> PROPER values to avoid continuously generating KBC input events. >>>>>>>> -Use *en* field in pin_cfg, to check GPIO_x_ROW_EN register >>>>>>>> should be set or clear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Shridhar Rasal<srasal@nvidia.com> >>>>>>> I wondered if num==0 could be used instead of a new en field, but 0 is a >>>>>>> valid row/column number, so no. As such, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren<swarren@nvidia.com> >>>>>> Can we pass in number of pin_cfg instances in pdata and simply do not >>>>>> mention unneeded pins instead? >>>>> IIUC, the array is currently a fixed size (based on the set of pins >>>>> Supported by the KBC), hence that won't work; there's an entry for each >>>>> pin saying which row/column it is. >>>>> >>>>> However, I suppose if we were to change the structure of the pdata to be: >>>>> >>>>> struct tegra_kbc_pin_cfg { >>>>> bool is_row; >>>>> u8 row_col_id; >>>>> u8 pin_id; >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> Then struct tegra_kbc_platform_data could indeed have a pointer to a >>>>> variable-sized array of these, which would avoid the "en" member. >>>>> >>>> How about we change bool to enum instead, like in the patch below? >>> *ping* >> That's conceptually fine by me. I was assuming you were asking Rakesh... > Everyone... Anyone ;) > >> I'd rather PIN_CFG_IGNORE was the first enum, so it gets value 0, or this >> probably won't solve the original issue? > The benefit of current definition is that it is compatible with old > ones using bool... > > Thanks. Sorry for delay in response. I am OK with new definition. Agree, makes compatible with old definitions. Thanks!
| |