From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:02:24 -0800 Message-ID: <54EFC220.7020804@broadcom.com> References: <1419027470-7969-1-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <1419027470-7969-2-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <20150115010256.GC9134@dtor-ws> <54B753C7.6000006@broadcom.com> <20150115060713.GA2694@dtor-ws> <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> <54DBA34E.8090400@broadcom.com> <20150224231844.GA39158@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150224231844.GA39158@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Scott Branden , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Ray Jui , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches , Hans de Goede List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Dmitry, Thanks. I'll go through his patch and make the appropriate changes to our driver. Jon On 15-02-24 03:18 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Jonathan, > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:45:34AM -0800, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >> Pinging maintainers... Am I ok to go ahead with the current rotation >> implementation? I haven't heard anything further. Any feedback on naming >> conventions from DT people? >> > > I believe we should go with touchscreen-inverted-x, > touchscreen-inverted-y and touchscreen-swapped-x-y properties since > rotation can't really describe all permutations of potential > connections. > > I'll be taking Hans de Goede's patch adding this new property to the > bindings (adjusting the name slightly). > > Thanks. > >> Thanks! >> >> On 15-01-15 11:51 AM, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >>> Hi Dmitry, >>> >>> On 15-01-14 10:07 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:44:39PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >>>>> On 15-01-14 05:02 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>> Hi Jonathan, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:17:49PM -0800, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "scanning_period", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 1 || val > 256) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "scanning_period must be [1-256]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.scanning_period = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "debounce_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "debounce_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.debounce_timeout = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "settling_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 11) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "settling_timeout must be [0-11]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.settling_timeout = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "touch_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "touch_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.touch_timeout = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "average_data", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 8) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "average_data must be [0-8]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.average_data = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "fifo_threshold", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 31) { >>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fifo_threshold must be [0-31]\n"); >>>>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + priv->cfg_params.fifo_threshold = val; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> I think these are dveice specific and thus should have "brcm," prefix. >>>>> I'm confused as to why we need the brcm prefix? Other device tree >>>>> bindings we have for other drivers do not need such prefix. >>>> >>>> Properties that are not standard on the system (reg, interrupts, >>>> clkocks, etc) or subsystem level customarily carry the vendor prefix so >>>> that they do not clash with newly added global or subsystem properties. >>>> >>>>> Is this >>>>> convention documented somewhere? >>>> >>>> Not sure. I glanced through Documentation/devicetree and do not see it >>>> spelled out. Device tree overlords, what say you? >>> >>> Let me know. I haven't seen this before either. I will change the >>> entries to use dashes though instead of underscores but will wait until >>> these other issues are decided on before sending out another patch. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = TS_ROTATION_0; >>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "ts-rotation", &val) >= 0) { >>>>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = val; >>>>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "ts rotation [%d] degrees\n", >>>>>>> + 90 * priv->ts_rotation); >>>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> This I am not quite sure about - if we want rotation or swap+invert. You >>>>>> are CCed on another email (tsc2007) that talks about need of generic >>>>>> touchscreen transforms in input core/of bindings. >>>>> Does such generic binding exist today? If not, I would like to go >>>>> with this implementation and update to the new binding if/when it >>>>> exists? >>>> >>>> Not yet but there several people interested. I think we have enough time >>>> till 3.20 to hash it out properly. >>> >>> I think the rotation is simpler personally. Everyone would understand >>> rotation refers to how it's oriented but I'm not sure everyone would >>> immediately know how it is wired. Let me know what is decided and I'll >>> make any changes required. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Jon >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>> >> >