On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:01:23AM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > Hello, > > 2015-05-12 23:21 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 02:55:40AM +0300, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote: > >> As LoCoMo is switching to new device model, adapt keyboard driver to > >> support new locomo core driver. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > Thanks for the review. > > >> /* helper functions for reading the keyboard matrix */ > >> -static inline void locomokbd_charge_all(unsigned long membase) > >> +static inline void locomokbd_charge_all(struct locomokbd *locomokbd) > >> { > >> - locomo_writel(0x00FF, membase + LOCOMO_KSC); > >> + regmap_write(locomokbd->regmap, LOCOMO_KSC, 0x00ff); > >> } > >> > >> -static inline void locomokbd_activate_all(unsigned long membase) > >> +static inline void locomokbd_activate_all(struct locomokbd *locomokbd) > > > > Drop "inline"s from the .c file please. > > Why? Because compiler usually knows better whether a function should be inlined or not as it keeps track of available registers, so leave the decision to it. > > > > >> { > >> - unsigned long r; > >> - > >> - locomo_writel(0, membase + LOCOMO_KSC); > >> - r = locomo_readl(membase + LOCOMO_KIC); > >> - r &= 0xFEFF; > >> - locomo_writel(r, membase + LOCOMO_KIC); > >> + regmap_write(locomokbd->regmap, LOCOMO_KSC, 0); > >> + regmap_update_bits(locomokbd->regmap, LOCOMO_KIC, 0x100, 0); > >> } > >> > > [skipped] > > >> @@ -291,16 +275,30 @@ static int locomokbd_probe(struct locomo_dev *dev) > >> > >> input_set_drvdata(input_dev, locomokbd); > >> > >> - memcpy(locomokbd->keycode, locomokbd_keycode, sizeof(locomokbd->keycode)); > >> + memcpy(locomokbd->keycode, > >> + locomokbd_keycode, > >> + sizeof(locomokbd->keycode)); > >> + > >> + if (machine_is_collie()) > >> + locomokbd->keycode[18] = KEY_HOME; > >> + else > >> + locomokbd->keycode[3] = KEY_HOME; > > > > This seems like a new addition. Ideally keymap twiddling shoudl be done > > from userspace. > > This fixes a hardware issue. Home key is wired differently on two > devices using this driver. > I'd prefer to have such setting in board file or in DTS in future, > however that looks like an > overkill. What would be your suggestion? I am OK with doing this in driver, just as a separate patch please. > > >> /* attempt to get the interrupt */ > >> - err = request_irq(dev->irq[0], locomokbd_interrupt, 0, "locomokbd", locomokbd); > >> + err = request_irq(locomokbd->irq, locomokbd_interrupt, 0, > >> + "locomokbd", locomokbd); > > > > devm_request_irq()? > > > [skipped] > > >> -static int locomokbd_remove(struct locomo_dev *dev) > >> +static int locomokbd_remove(struct platform_device *dev) > >> { > >> - struct locomokbd *locomokbd = locomo_get_drvdata(dev); > >> + struct locomokbd *locomokbd = platform_get_drvdata(dev); > >> > >> - free_irq(dev->irq[0], locomokbd); > >> + free_irq(locomokbd->irq, locomokbd); > > > > Is not needed with devm. > > Not quite. There will be a possibility for the IRQ to happen after deleting > a timer in locomokbd_remove() and before freeing the IRQ through the devres > core. Oops. Right, but if you make sure that device does not generate interrupts in probe() until open() is called and do the same in close(), then it should be OK. > > > > >> > >> del_timer_sync(&locomokbd->timer); > > > > Should likely to go into close(). > > Hmm. I will rethink this part, thank you. > > >> + > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP > >> +static int locomokbd_suspend(struct device *dev) > > > > Mark as __maybe_unused instead of giarding with CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. > > Fine, however I thought that #ifdef's here are a typical pattern. It is up to subsystems, __maybe_unused provides better compile coverage. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html