[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8bd0f97a0909141102l5fa309f4ua1bedd0f1ac99295@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 14:02:18 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Javier Herrero <jherrero@...istemas.es>,
Bryan Wu <cooloney@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] input/keyboard: new OpenCores Keyboard Controller
driver
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 13:49, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Monday 14 September 2009 10:40:03 am Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> +struct opencores_kbd {
>> + struct input_dev *input;
>> + struct resource *addr_res;
>> + struct resource *irq_res;
>> + unsigned short *keycode;
>> +};
>
> Why do we allocate keycode table separately form the main structure?
the double alloc looked a little funny, but i didnt dive deep into the
details. but as you point this out, it seems to make sense to me.
any problems with that change Javier ?
i.e. we do:
struct ... { ... unsigned short keycode[NUM_KEYS]; }
rather than doing two calls to kmalloc
> I think I still have some reservations with the notion that we can just
> have exact "scancode" - KEY_* mapping and hardware producers will adjust
> the hardware to follow the deriver but I guess it's OK...
considering this is a piece of "hardware" implemented in FPGAs, i
think it's ok too. if someone really needs more flexibility, then
they're free to extend the driver and submit a patch :).
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists