Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 09:16:16AM -0700, Nick Dyer wrote: >> Mark Brown wrote: >>> Yes, to be honest. I'd hope it wouldn't be increasing the number of >>> read/write operations... > >> For some operations it does. For example updating the whole chip config >> (which is a common thing to want to do), it would turn a couple of write >> operations into ~20 on recent chips. > > Is that really happening on peformance critical paths other than initial > power up (which could be handled more neatly anyway). Well, you're right that we could probably add more API for performance critical stuff. But that wasn't your original question. >>> and of course a system integrator may choose not to copy the reference >>> design in this respect, it does seem a bit odd after all. > >> You're being a bit optimistic there. Examples of devices that require >> this are Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, Asus Transformer TF101. > > If absoluely nobody has used the separate wakeup pin then the hardware > designers are wasting a pin there... my point isn't that nobody would > use the reference design it's that some boards will have the separate > signal. That's entirely hypothetical, and you're wasting our time until you can actually point to such hardware, happy to write patches to support that mode of operation as well if you do. -- 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
