On 22-06-18, 11:52, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > static int pm8941_reboot_notify(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > @@ -124,7 +132,8 @@ static irqreturn_t pm8941_pwrkey_irq(int irq, void *_data)
> > if (error)
> > return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >
> > - input_report_key(pwrkey->input, KEY_POWER, !!(sts & PON_KPDPWR_N_SET));
> > + input_report_key(pwrkey->input, pwrkey->code,
> > + !!(sts & pwrkey->data->status_bit));
>
> Since we are changing this: input core will normalize the value for you,
> no need for doing double negation here.
Okay will do, since this "should" be explained that input core handles
it, do you recommend and separate patch for that?
> > @@ -190,8 +209,13 @@ static int pm8941_pwrkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > error = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "reg",
> > &pwrkey->baseaddr);
> > - if (error)
> > - return error;
> > + if (error) {
> > + /* check if parent has reg before bailing */
> > + error = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.parent->of_node,
> > + "reg", &pwrkey->baseaddr);
> > + if (error)
> > + return error;
>
> I do not want us blindly look up into parent for individual properties.
> We need to decide early on if we are dealing with subnode or older
> binding and stick to it.
okay will do.
> > error = regmap_read(pwrkey->regmap, pwrkey->baseaddr + PON_REV2,
> > &pwrkey->revision);
> > @@ -200,13 +224,20 @@ static int pm8941_pwrkey_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> > + error = of_property_read_u32(pdev->dev.of_node, "linux,code",
> > + &pwrkey->code);
> > + if (error) {
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no linux,code assuming power%d\n", error);
>
> This is not an error. dev_dbg or dev_info at most.
okay will change
--
~Vinod
--
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
