From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balbi@ti.com (Felipe Balbi) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:21:23 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] fix n900 dts file to work around 4.1 touchscreen regression on n900 In-Reply-To: <20150529201745.GC17267@lukather> References: <20150527132545.GA23434@amd> <20150527133311.GJ30798@pali> <20150527143722.GA28108@amd> <20150527145837.GA13223@earth> <20150529190816.GA20232@amd> <20150529192505.GA28987@amd> <20150529193211.GA7599@amd> <20150529194955.GV2026@saruman.tx.rr.com> <20150529195629.GA9811@amd> <20150529201745.GC17267@lukather> Message-ID: <20150529202123.GY2026@saruman.tx.rr.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:17:45PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:56:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2015-05-29 14:49:55, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Fix dts to match what the Linux kernel expects. This works around > > > > touchscreen problems in 4.1 linux on Nokia n900. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > index 4b641c7..09089a6 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt > > > > @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ Example: > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-x = <4>; > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-y = <7>; > > > > touchscreen-fuzz-pressure = <2>; > > > > - touchscreen-max-x = <4096>; > > > > - touchscreen-max-y = <4096>; > > > > + touchscreen-size-x = <4096>; > > > > + touchscreen-size-y = <4096>; > > > > > > IMHO, the older binding needs to be supported as well. It's fine to > > > update the DTS for the new binding, but even Documentation says > > > touchscreen-max-[xy] and if the driver changed that, the driver should > > > be fixed too. Besides, it seems like this has been in tree since > > > v3.16: > > > > Agreed. In parent email, I have list of two commits that should be > > reverted. > > So, if we sums things up. You introduce in some documentation example > some property, that you never document, that you still use in one it was Documented in DT bindings document for this particular driver. What are you talking about ? > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that not Pali, Sebastian. > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted? We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed. -- balbi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: