<I seem to have deleted the original mail without reply-ing, so from a threaded mailer pov this is a top-post, sorry>
Hi,
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > + for_each_set_bit(i, input->relbit, REL_CNT) {
> > + if (!test_bit(i, bdev->rel_axis_seen))
> > + input_event(input, EV_REL, i, 0);
> > + }
>
> I wonder if this should be written as
>
> for_each_set_bit(i, bdev->rel_axis_seen, REL_CNT)
> input_event(input, EV_REL, i, 0);
>
> i.e. the 2nd bit test is not really needed because we should not see
> unsupported bits in "seen" axes.
Yes that makes sense, I'll make this change, re-test and post a new version.
> > + if (fwnode_property_read_u32(child, "linux,input-value",
> > + (u32 *)&button->value))
> > + button->value = 1;
>
> Umm, we need negative values too... but there is no
> fwnode_property_read_s32 :(. We need to document in the bindings that
> value is treated as signed so that users can still achieve the needed
> effect.
Right, I was looking how to deal with this, and the generic fwnode
interface has no s32 version, but the devicetree linux/of.h code has:
static inline int of_property_read_s32(const struct device_node *np,
const char *propname,
s32 *out_value)
{
return of_property_read_u32(np, propname, (u32*) out_value);
}
So this seemed like the best way to deal with this. You're right that
the devicetree binding docs should explicitly state that negative
numbers are allowed though, I will update the dt-bindings doc
patch accordingly.
Regards,
Hans
--
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
