Am Freitag, 3. Januar 2014, 10:23:50 schrieb Dmitry Torokhov: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 06:36:05PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:36:33PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 01/02/2014 09:20 PM, 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. > > > > > > In the gpio case there is a 1 on 1 relation between a single hw > > > entity (the gpio-pin) and a single keycode. Here there is 1 hw entity > > > which maps to an array of key-codes, certainly using an array rather > > > then a much more complicated construct is the correct data-structure > > > to represent this. > > > > You can build an array in your driver out of this very easily, it's 10 > > lines in your probe. And you gain from this something that is more > > generic, can be shared by other similar drivers and is consistent with > > what is already in use. > > How will it be shared? Surely not code-wise, but basically in spirit > only. It seems to me that the originally proposed binding is simple and > concise and works well for the driver. I don't think "binding [...] works well for the driver" is the correct direction. From my understanding the binding should describe the hardware in an os-agnostic way (so "linux,foo" properties should stay the exception) and not the data structures used in the driver. The driver itself then implements the binding to convert the binding-data into a structure it wants to use. The sharing would, as you suggested, be in spirit and in the use of already established dt-properties without introducing more non-standard ones. Heiko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html