What's the reason for splitting this up? Things would be a quite a bit
simpler if all the code was directly in atakeyb.c.
+/*
+ * linux/atari/atakeyb.c
This is a good reason why filename comments are a really bad idea :)
+/* state: 0: off; >0: in progress; >1: 0xf1 received */
+static volatile int ikbd_self_test;
+/* timestamp when last received a char */
+static volatile unsigned long self_test_last_rcv;
Please don't use volatile variable in kernel code. While linux/m68k doesn't
support smp or preemptible kernels we should at least put in proper synchronization
at the API level.
+/* bitmap of keys reported as broken */
+static unsigned long broken_keys[128/(sizeof(unsigned long)*8)] = { 0, };
DECLARE_BITMAP()
+typedef enum kb_state_t {
+ KEYBOARD, AMOUSE, RMOUSE, JOYSTICK, CLOCK, RESYNC
+} KB_STATE_T;
+
+#define IS_SYNC_CODE(sc) ((sc) >= 0x04 && (sc) <= 0xfb)
+
+typedef struct keyboard_state {
+ unsigned char buf[6];
+ int len;
+ KB_STATE_T state;
+} KEYBOARD_STATE;
Please kill the typedefs and shouting names.
+#ifdef __MODULE__
+MODULE_PARM(mouse_threshold, "2i");
+#endif
__MODULE__ is never true and even if it was a MODULE_PARM wouldn't compile.
use an unconditional module_param instead.
--- linux-m68k-2.6.21.orig/include/linux/input.h
+++ linux-m68k-2.6.21/include/linux/input.h
@@ -676,6 +676,7 @@ struct input_absinfo {
#define BUS_I2C 0x18
#define BUS_HOST 0x19
#define BUS_GSC 0x1A
+#define BUS_ATARI 0x1B
Is this really a separate bus? Should't we have a BUS_ONBOARD or so instead?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
