On Dec 12 2016 or thereabouts, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> Given the timing (merge window being open) and given then NACK given by
> Rob, I've now unapplied the patches (the for-4.10/i2c-hid branch is now
> obsolete, and has been superseded by for-4.10/i2c-hid-nopower).
>
> However, this is mostly done in order to provide more time for discussion;
> I still disagree with the reasoning behind the NACK.
>
To hopefully make things going forward a little bit, I was wondering
over the week-end if we should not solve this particular issue by adding
an intermediate platform DT node:
instead of having:
---
i2c-hid-dev@2c {
compatible = "hid-over-i2c";
reg = <0x2c>;
hid-descr-addr = <0x0020>;
interrupt-parent = <&gpx3>;
interrupts = <3 2>;
vdd-supply = <sth>;
init-delay-ms = <100>;
};
---
we would have:
---
platform-i2c-hid@01 {
compatible =
"very-special-board-that-needs-firmware-quirks-and-delay-of-100ms";
vdd-supply = <sth>;
i2c-hid-dev@2c {
compatible = "hid-over-i2c";
reg = <0x2c>;
hid-descr-addr = <0x0020>;
interrupt-parent = <&gpx3>;
interrupts = <3 2>;
};
};
---
If I am not wrong, the platform device should be initialized before
i2c-hid get called, which allows to setup properly the vdd supply.
On resume/suspend, the tree should be respected and we should be able to
enable/disable power in the same fashion this patch provides.
We could then extend this platform device at will without tinkering in
i2c-hid and we could also handle the GPIOs, reset or whatever is
required in the future through compatibles.
Thoughts? yes? no? bullshit?
Cheers,
Benjamin
