* Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [120910 23:02]:
>
> >
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP1
> > +#define omap_kp_24xx() 0
> > +#else
> > +#define omap_kp_24xx() 1
> > +#endif
>
> I would rather use revision detection or different driver names (if
> revision register is broken).
Hmm actually looks like we can actually remove all the omap2+
support as we no longer have any users for this one. I think I
already converted the last one to matrix-keypad a while back.
> > +static struct omap_kp *omap_kp;
>
> please don't. This will prevent multiple instances of this driver. Even
> though I don't think we will ever have an omap with multiple keypad
> instances, it's still not a good practice IMHO.
>
> Also, this ends up being "hidden" (if you have a better work let me
> know) in most functions since they either pass omap_kp as argument or
> define a local omap_kp variable.
Yeah good point, I'll update that and remove the omap2+ support
for this driver.
> Sourav, is the revision register on this IP working fine across multiple
> OMAPs ?
Sounds like no need for that, as we're no longer using this for
omap2+..
> > @@ -253,9 +256,9 @@ static ssize_t omap_kp_enable_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute
> > mutex_lock(&kp_enable_mutex);
> > if (state != kp_enable) {
> > if (state)
> > - enable_irq(INT_KEYBOARD);
> > + enable_irq(omap_kp->irq);
> > else
> > - disable_irq(INT_KEYBOARD);
> > + disable_irq(omap_kp->irq);
>
> GREAT!! :-)
Heh yeah that nice way to do it :)
> > static int __devinit omap_kp_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > {
> > - struct omap_kp *omap_kp;
>
> ???? I don't see the point for that global omap_kp, actually ...
Yes you're right. Will send an updated one tomorrow.
Regards,
Tony
--
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
