[PATCH 1/5] drivers: input: keyboard: st-keyscan: add keyscan driver

[Gabriel Fernandez]

Hi Lee,

On 03/14/2014 11:42 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> Sorry for the delay. It was a hectic week last week.
>>>
>>> As promised:
>>>
>>>> This patch adds ST Keyscan driver to use the keypad hw a subset
>>>> of ST boards provide. Specific board setup will be put in the
>>>> given dt.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Condorelli<giuseppe.condorelli at st.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fernandez<gabriel.fernandez at st.com>
>>> Are you sure these are in the correct order?
>> ok i change the order
> I'm not saying they are in the wrong order, I'm just asking. Who wrote
> the patch? Has it changed since?
Sorry...
I wrote the patch, then Guiseppe has changed and tested, and I re-modifiedit
>>>> +- linux,keymap: The keymap for keys as described in the binding document
>>>> +  devicetree/bindings/input/matrix-keymap.txt.
>>>> +
>>>> +- keypad,num-rows: Number of row lines connected to the keypad controller.
>>>> +
>>>> +- keypad,num-columns: Number of column lines connected to the keypad
>>>> +  controller.
>>>> +
>>>> +- st,debounce_us: Debouncing interval time in microseconds
>>> I'm sure there will be a shared binding for de-bounce.
>>>
>>> If not, there certainly should be.
>> you want to refer to "debounce-interval" ?
> That sounds more generic, but if it's not documented as such, then
> please consider doing so.
>
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +keyscan: keyscan at fe4b0000 {
>>> +	compatible = "st,keypad";
>>> Is there any way we can make this more specific to _this_ IP?
>> for my knowledge this IP is the same for stixxxx platform.
> So st,stix-keypad, or st,sti4x-keypad?
>
> I'm just thinking about future proofing the architecture. What if ST
> released stj which has a different keypad IP?
After discussing internally with st  "st,sti-keyscan" is better

>>>> +struct keyscan_priv {
>>>> +	void __iomem *base;
>>>> +	int irq;
>>>> +	struct clk *clk;
>>>> +	struct input_dev *input_dev;
>>>> +	struct keypad_platform_data *config;
>>>> +	unsigned int last_state;
>>>> +	u32 keycodes[ST_KEYSCAN_MAXKEYS];
>>> Seems odd to limit this. Can't the information come from DT
>>> i.e. keypad,num-rows and keypad,num-columns?
>>>
>> i 'll rename 'num_out_pads' into 'n_rows' and 'num_in_pads' into
>> 'n_cols'
> That's not quite what I meant, I mean can't ST_KEY_MAXKEYS be more
> dynamic and be obtained from (keypad,num-rows * keypad,num-columns)?
ok