On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 01:16:48PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:

Mika Westerberg [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 07:35:07AM +0100, ext Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 07:39:28PM +0100, Ferenc Wagner wrote:

quoted

Mika Westerberg [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

So I'll try to implement this gpio-keys muting so that it allows
also multiple buttons to share single IRQ line.

Thanks.  But you'd better wait for Dmitry's response, because I'm by no
means authoritative in this business.

I would not refuse a reasonable patch as long as there is a use case for
it. The only think is that I would prefer to keep compatibility with the
current format of the platform data, otherwise we will screw up embedded
guys that are currently using the driver. But if compatibility results
in too ugly code then I reserve the right to invoke "out of tree drivers
- don't care" card ;)

How about if we just add one field to struct gpio_keys_button?
	...
	bool can_disable;

Then gpio_keys uses this field when it decides what irqflags it
is going to pass to request_irq() (we don't allow platform data
to pass exact flags). So in case of can_disable is set, we don't
pass IRQF_SHARED to request_irq().

When support for sharing single IRQ between multiple buttons arrives
this field is still valid and we just need to take care of disable IRQ
line only when all buttons that share it, are disabled.

This won't break existing users of gpio_keys and allows future
extension to support case of multiple buttons sharing single
IRQ line, right?

Please don't shoot me, but I've got a different idea: what if we leave
this whole business to the generic kernel interrupt handling routines?
It would be as easy as requesting the IRQ on device open (I guess the
input layer can relay the open event down here) and freeing it on close.
The IRQ could stat shared all the time, and the kernel would
automatically disable it when all handlers are unregistered.  All this
means no need to extend the platform data, no need for a separate sysfs
interface, and still the application would have complete control of its
wakeup sources by opening/closing them as needed.  What do you think?

Yeah, that would be nice. But it won't work for us :(

This is because the actual input device might be open for several
applications. Then we have single process which controls state of
the device. Now if, for example the device is locked by user, this
process just disables those buttons which are not allowed to wake
up the device and blanks the screen.

So the input device is still open but we just prevent GPIO lines
from generating any interrupts while the device is locked. There
are other use-cases also where different buttons are
disabled/enabled.

Thanks,
MW