Am Montag, 30. September 2024, 11:11:56 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz: > Hi Heiko, > > On 9/30/24 10:49 AM, Heiko Stübner wrote: > > Hey Quentin, Daniel, > > > > Am Donnerstag, 26. September 2024, 14:34:30 CEST schrieb Quentin Schulz: > >> On 9/25/24 9:28 AM, Daniel Semkowicz wrote: > >>> There is a PWRBTN# input pin exposed on a Q7 connector. The pin > >>> is routed to a GPIO0_A1 through a diode. Q7 specification describes > >>> the PWRBTN# pin as a Power Button signal. > >>> Configure the pin as KEY_POWER, so it can function as power button and > >>> trigger device shutdown. > >>> Add the pin definition to RK3399 Puma dts, so it can be reused > >>> by derived platforms, but keep it disabled by default. > >>> > >>> Enable the power button input on Haikou development board. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Semkowicz <dse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This works, thanks. > >> > >> Tested-by: Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Now I have some questions I wasn't able to answer myself, maybe someone > >> can provide some feedback on those :) > >> > >> We already have a gpio-keys for buttons on Haikou, c.f. > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.11/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-puma-haikou.dts#L22. > >> Those signals are directly routed to the SoM and follow the Qseven standard. > >> > >> The same applies to PWRBTN# signal. > >> > >> However, here we have one gpio-keys for PWRBTN# in Puma DTSI and one > >> gpio-keys for the buttons and sliders on Haikou devkit in Haikou DTS. > >> > >> I'm a bit undecided on where this should go. > >> > >> Having all button/slider signals following the Qseven standard in Puma > >> DTSI and enable the gpio-keys only in the devkit would make sense to me, > >> so that other baseboards could easily make use of it. However, things > >> get complicated if the baseboard manufacturer decides to only implement > >> **some** of the signals, for which we then need to remove some nodes > >> from gpio-keys (and pinctrl entries) since gpio-keys doesn't check the > >> "status" property in its child nodes (though that could be fixed). At > >> which point, it's not entirely clear if having it in Puma DTSI is > >> actually beneficial. > >> > >> Someone has an opinion/recommendation on that? > > > > I guess from a platform perspective nobody really cares, so as that is > > "your" board, it comes down to a policy decision on your part ;-) . > > > > While pins follow the q7 standard, there may very well be some lax > > handling of that standard in some places, and I guess gpio lines could > > be re-used for something else if needed, as something like the lid-switch > > is probably non-essential. > > > > Also a gpio-key input does not create that much code-overhead if > > replicated, so personally I'd just stick the power-button with the other > > buttons in the haikou dts. > > > > Which is also a way better thing than having multiple gpio-keys instances > > that userspace then has to handle. > > > > Yes, but this also means "code" duplication for whoever needs this for > their baseboard, instead of just having to add a &gpio_keys { status = > "okay"; }. Yes :-) . gpio-keys is special in a way in that you could end up with a different set of enabled keys per baseboard - dependent on how closely it follows the standard. So if someone repurposed the lid-switch only, you'd start changing the core node again. Hence for the gpio-keys it's probably easier to define the set of keys in the baseboard. It's of course different for regulator-infrastructure and such. > I don't think there's a good solution here, so I would suggest we go > with everything in Haikou's gpio-keys as Heiko suggested then, @Daniel > if you agree can you send a v2 for that? I'll wait for v2 then. Heiko
