Hi, Thursday 04 June 2009 20:18:33 Jonathan McDowell napisał(a): > On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 11:03:20AM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > > Wednesday 03 June 2009 00:04:33 Jonathan McDowell napisał(a): > > > > > * We assume the bootloader does the appropriate GPIO pin setup for us, > > > so I don't think your omap_cfg_reg is required but it doesn't hurt in > > > the unlikely event we ever replace the Amstrad PBL. > > > > OK, let it stay there. Do you see a need for replaceing it with a new > > ams_delta_hook_switch_init() function call that just calls > > omap_cfg_reg()? > > I don't see a need for this; it's always present and not a lot of code > to have in the init function as it stands. Fine, I'll only add a comment explainig the purpose of the call then. > > > Does the input layer not provide a way to obtain the > > > state of the switch? > > > > Yes, it does, with EVIOCGSW ioctl()[1]. I personally don't like this way > > of getting the switch status and would rather see it available over > > sysfs. However, input guys may have their own preferences and gpio-keys > > driver belongs to them. > > I think that's a discussion to have with the input guys rather than > putting a hack in the platform file then. Sure. I have a patch for gpio-keys.c ready to submit, let's see how far we can get with the idea of exporting a gpio-keys driven switch state over gpiolib sysfs. > So really the only issue with the patch that remains is if it justifies > adding a new SW_PHONE_HOOK switch type? I've just submitted a patch that adds new symbol definition to include/linux/input.h. Do I have to wait for acknowledgement before I resubmit my modified patch that depends on that, or can I submit it now? Thanks, Janusz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
