On Tue, 2024-10-01 at 07:55 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2024 at 03:41:34PM +0200, Nuno Sa wrote:
> > Add a more natural chip_info structure and add it to the i2c id table
> > driver data so that we do not need an enum a switch() to get the
> > specific bits of each device.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/input/keyboard/adp5589-keys.c | 181 ++++++++++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5589-keys.c
> > b/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5589-keys.c
> > index
> > 922d3ab998f3a5dfbaf277f10eb19e5cd1b35415..eaa5440d4f9e14352409dd880cd254354612bf3
> > e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5589-keys.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/adp5589-keys.c
> > @@ -228,16 +228,20 @@ struct adp_constants {
> > u8 (*reg) (u8 reg);
> > };
> >
> > +struct adp5589_info {
> > + const struct adp_constants *var;
> > + bool support_row5;
>
> Is it possible to derive "row5" data from keymap information to avoid
> having this fake "adp5585-02-keys" device?
>
This is not a fake device. Looking at the adp5585 datasheet you can see there's
module with 25 keys (without GPIO5) and another with 11 GPIOS. From the datasheet:
"- 10 configurable I/Os allowing functions such as Key pad decoding for a matrix of
up to 5 × 5
- 11 GPIOs (5 × 6) with ADP5585ACxZ-01-R7 models"
Why its named adp5585-02 in the driver I'm not sure. I kept the same name as the i2c
id? Should I call it ADP5585-1 instead? Or even ADP5585-1-r7?
- Nuno Sá
