...
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 02:18:00PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 09:28:59PM +0400, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > This patch adds a new driver for the beeper controlled via GPIO pin.
> > > > The driver does not depend on the architecture and is positioned as
> > > > a replacement for the specific drivers that are used for this function,
> > > > for example drivers/input/misc/ixp4xx-beeper.
...
> > > I think the driver should look like in the patch below. Can you please
> > > tell me if it works for you?
> > Works. The test was on ARM CLPS711X board with the driver is compiled
> > into the kernel, ie without modules. Non-critical comments inlined.
> Excellent, thank you.
> > > + beeper = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct gpio_beeper),
> > > + GFP_KERNEL);
> > I would prefer to do when moving padding on brackets.
>
> I am not sure what you were trying to say here... Are you saying
> GFP_KERNEL should be aligned with opening parenthesis?
Yes. This not important, but just looks better. :)
> > > + input = devm_input_allocate_device(dev);
> > I am temporaty replace this function to input_allocate_device() because
> > I am tested this driver on 2.6.8.
>
> Surely not 2.6? Anyway for devm_input_allocate_device() support you need
> the following commit from my 'next' branch in
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input.git
Sorry. Of course I meant 3.6.8.
> > > +static struct platform_driver gpio_beeper_platform_driver = {
> > > + .driver = {
> > > + .name = "gpio-beeper",
> > > + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
> > > + },
> > > + .probe = gpio_beeper_probe,
> > > + .shutdown = gpio_beeper_shutdown,
> > > +};
> > > +module_platform_driver(gpio_beeper_platform_driver);
> > No "remove" function?
>
> With all resources being devm_* managed (and shuttign off beeper
> happening in gpio_keys_close()) the remove function would be just an
> empty stub. As far as I can see platform devices not have to have a
> remove function, but testing this by unloading the driver or unbinding
> it via sysfs would be nice.
Unfortunately, I am unable to check in as a module.
Otherwise, you're right, because there will be no input_unregister_device,
we can not use the "remove".
You commit the result? Or I should remade complete non-RFC patch?
---
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��)��^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
