On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Nava kishore Manne
<nava.manne@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch adds the support to read the IRQ_FLAGS from the device
> instead of hard code the flags in gpio_keys_setup_key().
NACK
> sw14 {
> label = "sw14";
> gpios = <&gpio0 12 1>;
> /*
> * Triggering Type:
> *
> * 1 - edge rising
> * 2 - edge falling
> * 4 - level active high
> * 8 - level active low
> *
> */
You are completely violating the existing GPIO flags from
include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h
As you will see, for a twocell GPIO flags are already
clearly defined for 0,1,2 and 3. (Bit 0 & 1).
Further, these IRQ edge/level flags already exist in
include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h
but you should not be using those either, because they
do not mix with a GPIO specifier, it's a bit like oil and water.
The standard GPIO bindings already has
GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH and GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
which makes it pretty clear that a GPIO line marked
as GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH should trigger either on
rising edge or level active high and vice versa.
The only information you could *possibly* lack is
whether the IRQ should be edge or level triggered.
But level triggered GPIO buttons *does* *not* *make*
*sense* *at* *all*.
Think about it:
The IRQ line goes level high or low because a user
pressed a button with his/her thumb. Then that is wired
in as a level IRQ. So what are we going to do? Wait in
the interrupt handler until the user removes his/her
thumb?
Level IRQs on GPIOs only makes sense for devices
off-chip where you can talk to the device and ACK the
interrupt, and in this case "talk" does not mean wire
up a speaker telling the user to remove the thumb from
the button because we have recieved the interrupt, albeit
that would be the real-world analogy.
Please tell us what you are actually trying to solve.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
