Re: question about ruby's keyboard.c & keybdev.c

[Tom R. <tr...@ke...>]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 07:12:59PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> On Samstag, 13. Juli 2002 16:40, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 04:19:34PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> > > > > Exactly. i8042.c has quite a few assumptions in it. It uses inb/out
> > > > > instead of ioremap/readb/writeb, it assumes control and data register
> > > > > are 4 addresses apart and it assumes no special sequences are
> > > > > necessary to access these registers.
> > > >
> > > > Some time ago I thought about this when I looked at the sparc i8042
> > > > driver. I tried a few things but I didn't come up with a solution.
> > >
> > > What do you all think about the appended patch? With the strategy in the
> > > patch it should be possible to initialize and use i8042 chips on pretty
> > > much every platform without code duplication.
> > >
> > > The patch compiles on PPC (and thus should on x86 too), but I can't test
> > > it cause I don't have access to the affected embedded boards.
> > >
> > > If you like the approach, please apply it to the linux-input repo after
> > > testing on x86.
> >
> > A couple thoughs:
> >
> > 1) We could as well go back to using the asm/ include way, that way
> > we'd have less ifdefs, etc.
> 
> I don't think we would have many #ifdefs, hmm. With asm/ we would have 
> duplication of the header all over the place with nearly no difference. I 
> think in this case the maintainence burden is lower with the #ifdefs.

Isn't that what include/asm-generic/foo.h is for?  Or does that just get
abused into doing things like:
include/asm-$(ARCH)/foo.h
/*
 * We don't need anything special.
 */
#include <asm-generic/foo.h>

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/