On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > This series has been triggered by the Surface 3 I have been given. > The way Microsoft follows its own specs is always intriguing. As > written in drivers/platform/x86/surfacepro3_button.c, the PNP0C40 > ACPI device which should follow the specification doesn't have any > GPIO listed (thus the first 2 patches). > > Also, the actual ACPI device that has the GPIO described is declared > as an I2C one, even if there is no such device attached to the bus. > This particular device could use the soc_button_array driver after a > little bit of ACPI magic (patches to follow, later), but each GPIO in > this device is declared twice (as Int and Io), so the 3rd patch. > > Here is my question mentioned in $subject: > > Why are we using gpiod_get_index(dev, KBUILD_MODNAME, acpi_index, GPIOD_ASIS); > in soc_button_lookup_gpio()? > I'll leave the question open and send a v2 with an actual support of the Surface 3 buttons soon. I'll remove most of the CC-ed people as it might be considered as spam for most of you. Cheers, Benjamin -- 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
