From: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-input-
owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ext Dmitry Torokhov
Sent: 05 February, 2010 10:11
To: Onkalo Samu.P (Nokia-D/Tampere)
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org; Westerberg Mika.1 (EXT-Nixu/Helsinki);
Nikula Jani.1 (EXT-Nixu/Helsinki)
Subject: Re: [RFC] Generic implementation for Input enable disable
methods

On Thursday 04 February 2010 11:38:41 pm samu.p.onkalo@nokia.com wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: ext Dmitry Torokhov [mailto:dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com]

Hi Samu,

I still believe that the only thing we need (apart of special

plumbing

quoted

quoted

in
gpio-keys) is a way for userspace clients to subsribe on unsubscribe
from certain events rather than device-wide configuration. This way

we

quoted

quoted

can avoid waking up processes that are not interested in some of the
events.

Hi Dmitry,

I just noticed that control interface for gpio was applied to input-

tree.

quoted

We still have a need to disable hw in certain cases. It is probably

better

quoted

to forget generic implementation to input core and make control

interface

quoted

as specific to each driver like proposed some months ago for example
for tel4030-keypad driver. Or what do you think?

Sw filtering which avoids to wakeup some processes is not proper

solution

quoted

to embedded devices. We need to avoid waking up the processor itself.

I see. I think that such facility should not be limited to input devices
(with the exception of gpio-keys which is a special case since it works
with multiple interrupts). We need a way to allow userspace initiate
putting an arbitrary device to "sleep" and this should be generic
infrastructure.

I a way yes, generic interface would make sense. However, input devices
may have needs to partially shut down the HW based on the certain events
(similar to gpio key case).

So you need to talk to PM people again and design such facility with
them
since IIRC there wasn't anything like that last time you tried asking
that
question.

Originally implementation for twl4030-keypad was about the HW activity control.
It is true that this latest discussion is only about the interface.
I'm sorry about the confusion.

br
Samu