linux-kernel - Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH v2] input: misc: Add driver for Intel Bay Trail GPIO buttons

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20140420195846.GI12454@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Sun, 20 Apr 2014 12:58:46 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:	"Zhu, Lejun" <lejun.zhu@...ux.intel.com>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	yu-sheng Chen <verylong2@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: [PATCH v2] input: misc: Add driver for Intel Bay Trail
 GPIO buttons

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:20:01AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > 
> > Input: misc - Add driver for Intel Bay Trail GPIO buttons
> > 
> > From: Lejun Zhu <lejun.zhu@...ux.intel.com>
> > 
> > This patch adds support for the GPIO buttons on some Intel Bay Trail
> > tablets originally running Windows 8. The ACPI description of these
> > buttons follows "Windows ACPI Design Guide for SoC Platforms".
> 
> Hmm. Is it time for x86 to adopt device tree? Because this is 200
> lines of C code which should really have been 10 lines of .dts...
> 
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Some of the buttons like volume up/down are auto repeat, while others
> > + * are not. To support both, we register two platform devices, and put
> > + * buttons into them based on whether the key should be auto repeat.
> > + */
> > +#define BUTTON_TYPES	2
> > +
> > +struct soc_button_data {
> > +	struct platform_device *children[BUTTON_TYPES];
> > +};
> 
> Would it be possible to extend device description so that this hack is
> not needed?

It would be not that easy as that would mean we need to control
autorepeat (and thus control repeat delay/repeat rate and also report
them) on a per-key basis.

Having 2 separate devices, one offering autorepeat and another not using
it, is much simpler.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/