On Wed 08 Oct 02:50 PDT 2014, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 11:46 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Tue 07 Oct 02:01 PDT 2014, Ivan T. Ivanov wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Bjorn, > > > > > > On Mon, 2014-10-06 at 18:11 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote: [..] > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/input/misc/pm8941-pwrkey.c > > > > > > Any reason why we cannot reuse pm8xxx-pwrkey driver? It have been > > > converted to regmap already. > > > > > > > The boilerplate code is the same, > > The boilerplate code is almost 100% :-) > > > but configuration registers have different > > layout and values written in them are different. > > We talk about 3 registers and 2 bit defines. struct regmap_field > should be able to help here. > You're totally right, we could rewrite the driver to use regmap_field and make the rest of the differences conditional. In my eyes we end up with two drivers in one file - but it can be done. A difference however is that in pm8941 the ps hold behavious (reboot vs power off) is controlled by this same block. So I have an additional patch that adds a restart handler here that sets the pmic in the right state before we pull pshold (but I haven't been able to test it properly). In pm8xxx this is handled in the pmic misc block and does not belong in this driver. [..] > > > > Maybe if we introduce some vagueness related to interrupts in the dt binding > > documentation for pm8xxx we could simply reuse that binding. > > > > I would not say vagueness, we just can say that pm8941 did not have > second interrupt? > I don't like having conditional documentation - it's not only that the second interrupt is missing, the first one have different meaning. But you're right that it's a minor thing and can be done. Regards, Bjorn -- 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
