Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver

[Jonathan Richardson <jonathar@broadcom.com>]

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.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>