[RESEND PATCH] Input: tsc2007 - Read "ti,poll-period" as u32

[RESEND PATCH] Input: tsc2007 - Read "ti,poll-period" as u32

[Rob Herring (Arm)]

The "ti,poll-period" property is documented as a normal uint32 cell.
The driver used a u64 helper, which makes the helper type disagree with
the schema even though the stored value is still small.

Read "ti,poll-period" with the u32 helper matching the documented DT
cell size.

Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5-5
Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
---
 drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
index e4d7da0f4434..e2f49b37e18c 100644
--- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
+++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
@@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ static int tsc2007_get_pendown_state_gpio(struct device *dev)
 static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
 {
 	u32 val32;
-	u64 val64;
 
 	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,max-rt", &val32))
 		ts->max_rt = val32;
@@ -237,8 +236,8 @@ static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
 	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,fuzzz", &val32))
 		ts->fuzzz = val32;
 
-	if (!device_property_read_u64(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val64))
-		ts->poll_period = msecs_to_jiffies(val64);
+	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val32))
+		ts->poll_period = msecs_to_jiffies(val32);
 	else
 		ts->poll_period = msecs_to_jiffies(1);
 
-- 
2.53.0

Re: [RESEND PATCH] Input: tsc2007 - Read "ti,poll-period" as u32

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi Rob,

On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 02:43:51PM -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> The "ti,poll-period" property is documented as a normal uint32 cell.
> The driver used a u64 helper, which makes the helper type disagree with
> the schema even though the stored value is still small.
> 
> Read "ti,poll-period" with the u32 helper matching the documented DT
> cell size.
> 
> Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5-5
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> index e4d7da0f4434..e2f49b37e18c 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ static int tsc2007_get_pendown_state_gpio(struct device *dev)
>  static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
>  {
>  	u32 val32;
> -	u64 val64;
>  
>  	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,max-rt", &val32))
>  		ts->max_rt = val32;
> @@ -237,8 +236,8 @@ static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
>  	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,fuzzz", &val32))
>  		ts->fuzzz = val32;
>  
> -	if (!device_property_read_u64(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val64))
> -		ts->poll_period = msecs_to_jiffies(val64);
> +	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val32))

Do we need to handle -EOVERFLOW and keep compatibility with device trees
that used /64/ to match driver implementation? Or we expect that there
were/are none?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [RESEND PATCH] Input: tsc2007 - Read "ti,poll-period" as u32

[Rob Herring]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 12:51:44PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2026 at 02:43:51PM -0500, Rob Herring (Arm) wrote:
> > The "ti,poll-period" property is documented as a normal uint32 cell.
> > The driver used a u64 helper, which makes the helper type disagree with
> > the schema even though the stored value is still small.
> > 
> > Read "ti,poll-period" with the u32 helper matching the documented DT
> > cell size.
> > 
> > Assisted-by: Codex:gpt-5-5
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> > index e4d7da0f4434..e2f49b37e18c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/tsc2007_core.c
> > @@ -221,7 +221,6 @@ static int tsc2007_get_pendown_state_gpio(struct device *dev)
> >  static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
> >  {
> >  	u32 val32;
> > -	u64 val64;
> >  
> >  	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,max-rt", &val32))
> >  		ts->max_rt = val32;
> > @@ -237,8 +236,8 @@ static int tsc2007_probe_properties(struct device *dev, struct tsc2007 *ts)
> >  	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,fuzzz", &val32))
> >  		ts->fuzzz = val32;
> >  
> > -	if (!device_property_read_u64(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val64))
> > -		ts->poll_period = msecs_to_jiffies(val64);
> > +	if (!device_property_read_u32(dev, "ti,poll-period", &val32))
> 
> Do we need to handle -EOVERFLOW and keep compatibility with device trees
> that used /64/ to match driver implementation? Or we expect that there
> were/are none?

I suspect there aren't any users. Nothing upstream for sure and there 
never was. We could probably just delete the property.

Rob