On 18-10-18, 17:01, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 10:54:37AM +0530, Vinod wrote:
> > On 19-09-18, 18:49, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > > From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Update the binding and driver for pms405 pwrkey.
> >
> > Rob, Dmitry
> >
> > Gentle reminder for this patch...
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt | 1 +
> > > drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt
> > > index 34ab5763f494..736fba3bad54 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt
> > > @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ PROPERTIES
> > > Definition: must be one of:
> > > "qcom,pm8941-pwrkey"
> > > "qcom,pm8941-resin"
> > > + "qcom,pms405-pwrkey"
> > >
> > > - reg:
> > > Usage: required
> > > diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c b/drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c
> > > index 48153e0ca19a..fccf63263c1c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c
> > > @@ -317,6 +317,7 @@ static const struct pm8941_data resin_data = {
> > > static const struct of_device_id pm8941_pwr_key_id_table[] = {
> > > { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941-pwrkey", .data = &pwrkey_data },
> > > { .compatible = "qcom,pm8941-resin", .data = &resin_data },
> > > + { .compatible = "qcom,pms405-pwrkey", .data = &pwrkey_data },
>
> I am sure I asked this question before (in context of a different
> driver), but why do we need this compatible if we already have
> pm8941-pwrkey compatible? Isn't pms405-pwrkey compatible with
> pm8941-pwrkey as far as power key block goes? In which cases do we need
> new compatibles and when can we reuse existing ones? Rob?
Relooking I do think that reuse of pm8941-pwrkey is entirely feasible,
thanks for the suggestion. We can drop this and I will update DTS
--
~Vinod
