On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 11:46 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Tue 07 Oct 02:01 PDT 2014, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 18:11 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > > These patches add dt bindings and a device driver for the power key block in > > > the Qualcomm PM8941 pmic. > > > > > > Courtney Cavin (2): > > > input: Add Qualcomm PM8941 power key driver > > > input: pm8941-pwrkey: Add DT binding documentation > > > > > > .../bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt | 43 +++++ > > > drivers/input/misc/Kconfig | 12 ++ > > > drivers/input/misc/Makefile | 1 + > > > drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c | 196 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > > 4 files changed, 252 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/qcom,pm8941-pwrkey.txt > > > create mode 100644 drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c > > > > Any reason why we cannot reuse pm8xxx-pwrkey driver? It have been > > converted to regmap already. > > > > The boilerplate code is the same, The boilerplate code is almost 100% :-) > but configuration registers have different > layout and values written in them are different. We talk about 3 registers and 2 bit defines. struct regmap_field should be able to help here. > The pm8xxx block have separate > interrupts for press and release events while pm8941 have one interrupt for > both, so the pm8941 must read out the irq status bits to figure out which event > it was. Optional interrupt property? If both are defined hook old ISR, if its only one hook pm8941 ISR? > > Maybe if we introduce some vagueness related to interrupts in the dt binding > documentation for pm8xxx we could simply reuse that binding. > I would not say vagueness, we just can say that pm8941 did not have second interrupt? Regards, Ivan > Regards, > Bjorn -- 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
