On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 13:49, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday 14 September 2009 10:40:03 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> +struct opencores_kbd {
>> + struct input_dev *input;
>> + struct resource *addr_res;
>> + struct resource *irq_res;
>> + unsigned short *keycode;
>> +};
>
> Why do we allocate keycode table separately form the main structure?
the double alloc looked a little funny, but i didnt dive deep into the
details. but as you point this out, it seems to make sense to me.
any problems with that change Javier ?
i.e. we do:
struct ... { ... unsigned short keycode[NUM_KEYS]; }
rather than doing two calls to kmalloc
> I think I still have some reservations with the notion that we can just
> have exact "scancode" - KEY_* mapping and hardware producers will adjust
> the hardware to follow the deriver but I guess it's OK...
considering this is a piece of "hardware" implemented in FPGAs, i
think it's ok too. if someone really needs more flexibility, then
they're free to extend the driver and submit a patch :).
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
