[PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[Marek Vasut]

The old Ilitek touch controllers V3 and V6 can operate without
interrupt line, in polling mode. Drop the 'interrupts' property
requirement for those four controllers. To avoid overloading the
trivial-touch, fork the old Ilitek V3/V6 touch controller binding
into separate document.

Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
---
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Cc: Job Noorman <job@noorman.info>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
---
V2: Fork the Ilitek V3/V6 bindings into separate document
V3: Add RB from Frank
V4: No change
---
 .../input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml     | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml      |  4 --
 2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000..1d02aaba64f97
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Ilitek ILI21xx/ILI251x V3/V6 touch screen controller with i2c interface
+
+maintainers:
+  - Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
+  - Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    enum:
+      - ilitek,ili210x
+      - ilitek,ili2117
+      - ilitek,ili2120
+      - ilitek,ili251x
+
+  reg:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  interrupts:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  reset-gpios:
+    maxItems: 1
+
+  wakeup-source: true
+
+allOf:
+  - $ref: touchscreen.yaml
+
+required:
+  - compatible
+  - reg
+
+unevaluatedProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    i2c {
+        #address-cells = <1>;
+        #size-cells = <0>;
+
+        touchscreen@41 {
+            compatible = "ilitek,ili2120";
+            reg = <0x41>;
+        };
+    };
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml
index fa27c6754ca4e..6441d21223caf 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml
@@ -23,9 +23,6 @@ properties:
       # Hynitron cstxxx series touchscreen controller
       - hynitron,cst340
       # Ilitek I2C Touchscreen Controller
-      - ilitek,ili210x
-      - ilitek,ili2117
-      - ilitek,ili2120
       - ilitek,ili2130
       - ilitek,ili2131
       - ilitek,ili2132
@@ -33,7 +30,6 @@ properties:
       - ilitek,ili2322
       - ilitek,ili2323
       - ilitek,ili2326
-      - ilitek,ili251x
       - ilitek,ili2520
       - ilitek,ili2521
       # MAXI MAX11801 Resistive touch screen controller with i2c interface
-- 
2.51.0

[PATCH v4 2/3] Input: ili210x - convert to dev_err_probe()

[Marek Vasut]

Simplify error return handling, use dev_err_probe() where possible.
No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
---
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Cc: Job Noorman <job@noorman.info>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
---
V3: New patch
V4: Add missing return to dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "No IRQ!\n");
---
 drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c | 31 ++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
index fa38d70aded7b..264eee3e61d0a 100644
--- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
+++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
@@ -942,15 +942,11 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 	chip = device_get_match_data(dev);
 	if (!chip && id)
 		chip = (const struct ili2xxx_chip *)id->driver_data;
-	if (!chip) {
-		dev_err(&client->dev, "unknown device model\n");
-		return -ENODEV;
-	}
+	if (!chip)
+		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -ENODEV, "unknown device model\n");
 
-	if (client->irq <= 0) {
-		dev_err(dev, "No IRQ!\n");
-		return -EINVAL;
-	}
+	if (client->irq <= 0)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "No IRQ!\n");
 
 	reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
 	if (IS_ERR(reset_gpio))
@@ -998,28 +994,21 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 
 	error = input_mt_init_slots(input, priv->chip->max_touches,
 				    INPUT_MT_DIRECT);
-	if (error) {
-		dev_err(dev, "Unable to set up slots, err: %d\n", error);
-		return error;
-	}
+	if (error)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to set up slots\n");
 
 	error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, ili210x_irq,
 					  IRQF_ONESHOT, client->name, priv);
-	if (error) {
-		dev_err(dev, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ, err: %d\n",
-			error);
-		return error;
-	}
+	if (error)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ\n");
 
 	error = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ili210x_stop, priv);
 	if (error)
 		return error;
 
 	error = input_register_device(priv->input);
-	if (error) {
-		dev_err(dev, "Cannot register input device, err: %d\n", error);
-		return error;
-	}
+	if (error)
+		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Cannot register input device\n");
 
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] Input: ili210x - convert to dev_err_probe()

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:03AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Simplify error return handling, use dev_err_probe() where possible.
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] Input: ili210x - convert to dev_err_probe()

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 at 01:12, Marek Vasut
<marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org> wrote:
> Simplify error return handling, use dev_err_probe() where possible.
> No functional change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>

Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] Input: ili210x - convert to dev_err_probe()

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:03AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> Simplify error return handling, use dev_err_probe() where possible.
> No functional change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>

Applied, thank you.

-- 
Dmitry

[PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Marek Vasut]

There are designs incorporating Ilitek ILI2xxx touch controller that
do not connect interrupt pin, for example Waveshare 13.3" DSI display.
To support such systems use polling mode for the input device when I2C
client does not have interrupt assigned to it.

Factor out ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() to allow conditional scoped
guard around this code. The scoped guard has to be applied only in case
the IRQ line is connected, and not applied otherwise.

Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
---
Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
Cc: Job Noorman <job@noorman.info>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
---
V2: Test client->irq > 0 for IRQ presence
V3: - Rebase on dev_err_probe() conversion
    - Fix if (client->irq > 0) in ili210x_firmware_update_store()
V4: No change
---
 drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
index 264eee3e61d0a..22917a5825778 100644
--- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
+++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
@@ -327,9 +327,8 @@ static bool ili210x_report_events(struct ili210x *priv, u8 *touchdata)
 	return contact;
 }
 
-static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
+static void ili210x_process_events(struct ili210x *priv)
 {
-	struct ili210x *priv = irq_data;
 	struct i2c_client *client = priv->client;
 	const struct ili2xxx_chip *chip = priv->chip;
 	u8 touchdata[ILI210X_DATA_SIZE] = { 0 };
@@ -356,8 +355,22 @@ static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
 				usleep_range(time_delta, time_delta + 1000);
 		}
 	} while (!priv->stop && keep_polling);
+}
+
+static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
+{
+	struct ili210x *priv = irq_data;
+
+	ili210x_process_events(priv);
 
 	return IRQ_HANDLED;
+};
+
+static void ili210x_work_i2c_poll(struct input_dev *input)
+{
+	struct ili210x *priv = input_get_drvdata(input);
+
+	ili210x_process_events(priv);
 }
 
 static int ili251x_firmware_update_resolution(struct device *dev)
@@ -829,12 +842,32 @@ static int ili210x_do_firmware_update(struct ili210x *priv,
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(struct device *dev,
+					     const u8 *fwbuf, u16 ac_end, u16 df_end)
+{
+	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
+	struct ili210x *priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
+	const char *fwname = ILI251X_FW_FILENAME;
+	int error;
+
+	dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
+
+	ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
+
+	error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
+
+	ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
+
+	dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
+
+	return error;
+}
+
 static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
 					     struct device_attribute *attr,
 					     const char *buf, size_t count)
 {
 	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
-	struct ili210x *priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
 	const char *fwname = ILI251X_FW_FILENAME;
 	u16 ac_end, df_end;
 	int error;
@@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
 	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
 	 * to do it this way here.
 	 */
-	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
-		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
-
-		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
-
-		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
-
-		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
-
-		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
+	if (client->irq > 0) {
+		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
+			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
+		}
+	} else {
+		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
 	}
 
 	return error ?: count;
@@ -945,9 +974,6 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 	if (!chip)
 		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -ENODEV, "unknown device model\n");
 
-	if (client->irq <= 0)
-		return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "No IRQ!\n");
-
 	reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
 	if (IS_ERR(reset_gpio))
 		return PTR_ERR(reset_gpio);
@@ -997,10 +1023,20 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 	if (error)
 		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to set up slots\n");
 
-	error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, ili210x_irq,
-					  IRQF_ONESHOT, client->name, priv);
-	if (error)
-		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ\n");
+	input_set_drvdata(input, priv);
+
+	if (client->irq > 0) {
+		error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, ili210x_irq,
+						  IRQF_ONESHOT, client->name, priv);
+		if (error)
+			return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ\n");
+	} else {
+		error = input_setup_polling(input, ili210x_work_i2c_poll);
+		if (error)
+			return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Could not set up polling mode\n");
+
+		input_set_poll_interval(input, ILI2XXX_POLL_PERIOD);
+	}
 
 	error = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ili210x_stop, priv);
 	if (error)
-- 
2.51.0

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Frank Li]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> There are designs incorporating Ilitek ILI2xxx touch controller that
> do not connect interrupt pin, for example Waveshare 13.3" DSI display.
> To support such systems use polling mode for the input device when I2C
> client does not have interrupt assigned to it.
>
> Factor out ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() to allow conditional scoped
> guard around this code. The scoped guard has to be applied only in case
> the IRQ line is connected, and not applied otherwise.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>

Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>

> ---
> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> Cc: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> Cc: Job Noorman <job@noorman.info>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> V2: Test client->irq > 0 for IRQ presence
> V3: - Rebase on dev_err_probe() conversion
>     - Fix if (client->irq > 0) in ili210x_firmware_update_store()
> V4: No change
> ---
>  drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
> index 264eee3e61d0a..22917a5825778 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ili210x.c
> @@ -327,9 +327,8 @@ static bool ili210x_report_events(struct ili210x *priv, u8 *touchdata)
>  	return contact;
>  }
>
> -static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
> +static void ili210x_process_events(struct ili210x *priv)
>  {
> -	struct ili210x *priv = irq_data;
>  	struct i2c_client *client = priv->client;
>  	const struct ili2xxx_chip *chip = priv->chip;
>  	u8 touchdata[ILI210X_DATA_SIZE] = { 0 };
> @@ -356,8 +355,22 @@ static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
>  				usleep_range(time_delta, time_delta + 1000);
>  		}
>  	} while (!priv->stop && keep_polling);
> +}
> +
> +static irqreturn_t ili210x_irq(int irq, void *irq_data)
> +{
> +	struct ili210x *priv = irq_data;
> +
> +	ili210x_process_events(priv);
>
>  	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +};
> +
> +static void ili210x_work_i2c_poll(struct input_dev *input)
> +{
> +	struct ili210x *priv = input_get_drvdata(input);
> +
> +	ili210x_process_events(priv);
>  }
>
>  static int ili251x_firmware_update_resolution(struct device *dev)
> @@ -829,12 +842,32 @@ static int ili210x_do_firmware_update(struct ili210x *priv,
>  	return 0;
>  }
>
> +static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(struct device *dev,
> +					     const u8 *fwbuf, u16 ac_end, u16 df_end)
> +{
> +	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> +	struct ili210x *priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> +	const char *fwname = ILI251X_FW_FILENAME;
> +	int error;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
> +
> +	ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> +
> +	error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> +
> +	ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> +
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
> +
> +	return error;
> +}
> +
>  static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>  					     struct device_attribute *attr,
>  					     const char *buf, size_t count)
>  {
>  	struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev);
> -	struct ili210x *priv = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
>  	const char *fwname = ILI251X_FW_FILENAME;
>  	u16 ac_end, df_end;
>  	int error;
> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>  	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>  	 * to do it this way here.
>  	 */
> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
> -
> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> -
> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> -
> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> -
> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> +		}
> +	} else {
> +		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>  	}
>
>  	return error ?: count;
> @@ -945,9 +974,6 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	if (!chip)
>  		return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -ENODEV, "unknown device model\n");
>
> -	if (client->irq <= 0)
> -		return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, "No IRQ!\n");
> -
>  	reset_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(dev, "reset", GPIOD_OUT_HIGH);
>  	if (IS_ERR(reset_gpio))
>  		return PTR_ERR(reset_gpio);
> @@ -997,10 +1023,20 @@ static int ili210x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>  	if (error)
>  		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to set up slots\n");
>
> -	error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, ili210x_irq,
> -					  IRQF_ONESHOT, client->name, priv);
> -	if (error)
> -		return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ\n");
> +	input_set_drvdata(input, priv);
> +
> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
> +		error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL, ili210x_irq,
> +						  IRQF_ONESHOT, client->name, priv);
> +		if (error)
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Unable to request touchscreen IRQ\n");
> +	} else {
> +		error = input_setup_polling(input, ili210x_work_i2c_poll);
> +		if (error)
> +			return dev_err_probe(dev, error, "Could not set up polling mode\n");
> +
> +		input_set_poll_interval(input, ILI2XXX_POLL_PERIOD);
> +	}
>
>  	error = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, ili210x_stop, priv);
>  	if (error)
> --
> 2.51.0
>

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi Marek,

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>  	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>  	 * to do it this way here.
>  	 */
> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
> -
> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> -
> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> -
> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> -
> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> +		}

You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:

		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);

BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
lockdep_is_held() there?

> +	} else {
> +		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>  	}
>  

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>>   	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>>   	 * to do it this way here.
>>   	 */
>> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
>> -
>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>> -
>> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>> -
>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>> -
>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
>> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
>> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>> +		}
> 
> You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
> 
> 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);

This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I 
need to call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I 
cannot disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call 
ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable 
IRQs to avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?

> BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
> lockdep_is_held() there?

This part I understand even less, how does lockdep play into this ? The 
scoped_guard() disables and enables IRQs if they are available.

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
> > 
> > On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
> > >   	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
> > >   	 * to do it this way here.
> > >   	 */
> > > -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> > > -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
> > > -
> > > -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> > > -
> > > -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > > -
> > > -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> > > -
> > > -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
> > > +	if (client->irq > 0) {
> > > +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> > > +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > > +		}
> > 
> > You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
> > 
> > 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> > 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> 
> This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to
> call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot
> disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call
> ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to
> avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?

You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
in your if statement:

if (client->irq > 0) {
	guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
} else {
	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
}

This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h

void __disable_valid_irq(unsigned int irq)
{
	if (irq > 0)
		disable_irq(irq);
}

void __enable_valid_irq(unsigned int irq)
{
	if (irq > 0)
		enable_irq(irq);
}

DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(disable_valid_irq, int,
		    disable_valid_irq(*_T->lock), enable_valid_irq(*_T->lock))

and then we'd be able to keep the driver as is (just adjust the type of
the original scoped_guard).

> 
> > BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
> > lockdep_is_held() there?
> 
> This part I understand even less, how does lockdep play into this ? The
> scoped_guard() disables and enables IRQs if they are available.

Ah, sorry, brainfart on my part. I got confused by _noirq suffix.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/21/26 6:23 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>>>>    	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>>>>    	 * to do it this way here.
>>>>    	 */
>>>> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
>>>> -
>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>> -
>>>> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>> -
>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>> -
>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
>>>> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
>>>> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>> +		}
>>>
>>> You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
>>>
>>> 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
>>> 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>
>> This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to
>> call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot
>> disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call
>> ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to
>> avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?
> 
> You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
> in your if statement:
> 
> if (client->irq > 0) {
> 	guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> } else {
> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> }
> 
> This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h

Let me do the part above in V5 , and then the part below as a separate 
follow up patch/series. I already added the later in tree so it won't be 
lost. Does that work for you ?

> void __disable_valid_irq(unsigned int irq)
> {
> 	if (irq > 0)
> 		disable_irq(irq);
> }
> 
> void __enable_valid_irq(unsigned int irq)
> {
> 	if (irq > 0)
> 		enable_irq(irq);
> }
> 
> DEFINE_LOCK_GUARD_1(disable_valid_irq, int,
> 		    disable_valid_irq(*_T->lock), enable_valid_irq(*_T->lock))
> 
> and then we'd be able to keep the driver as is (just adjust the type of
> the original scoped_guard).
> 
>>
>>> BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
>>> lockdep_is_held() there?
>>
>> This part I understand even less, how does lockdep play into this ? The
>> scoped_guard() disables and enables IRQs if they are available.
> 
> Ah, sorry, brainfart on my part. I got confused by _noirq suffix.
OK

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:42:55PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/21/26 6:23 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > Hi Marek,
> > > > 
> > > > On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
> > > > >    	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
> > > > >    	 * to do it this way here.
> > > > >    	 */
> > > > > -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> > > > > -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
> > > > > -
> > > > > -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
> > > > > +	if (client->irq > 0) {
> > > > > +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
> > > > > +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > > > > +		}
> > > > 
> > > > You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
> > > > 
> > > > 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> > > > 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > > 
> > > This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to
> > > call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot
> > > disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call
> > > ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to
> > > avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?
> > 
> > You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
> > in your if statement:
> > 
> > if (client->irq > 0) {
> > 	guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> > 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > } else {
> > 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
> > }
> > 
> > This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h
> 
> Let me do the part above in V5 , and then the part below as a separate
> follow up patch/series. I already added the later in tree so it won't be
> lost. Does that work for you ?

It does, thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/21/26 11:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:42:55PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 1/21/26 6:23 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marek,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>>>>>>     	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>>>>>>     	 * to do it this way here.
>>>>>>     	 */
>>>>>> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
>>>>>> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
>>>>>> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>>>>>> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>
>>>>> You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
>>>>>
>>>>> 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
>>>>> 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>>>
>>>> This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to
>>>> call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot
>>>> disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call
>>>> ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to
>>>> avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?
>>>
>>> You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
>>> in your if statement:
>>>
>>> if (client->irq > 0) {
>>> 	guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
>>> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>> } else {
>>> 	error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>>> }
>>>
>>> This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h
>>
>> Let me do the part above in V5 , and then the part below as a separate
>> follow up patch/series. I already added the later in tree so it won't be
>> lost. Does that work for you ?
> 
> It does, thanks.
OK, V5 is out, the disable_valid_interrupt guard part is coming shortly.

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:02AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> The old Ilitek touch controllers V3 and V6 can operate without
> interrupt line, in polling mode. Drop the 'interrupts' property
> requirement for those four controllers. To avoid overloading the
> trivial-touch, fork the old Ilitek V3/V6 touch controller binding
> into separate document.

One if: block is fine, so IMO, this should stay in original binding
especially that more devices like some azoteq or semtech might have same
rule of not requiring interrupt line. Anyway, no big deal.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
> ---
> Cc: Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> Cc: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> Cc: Job Noorman <job@noorman.info>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@kernel.org>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org
> ---
> V2: Fork the Ilitek V3/V6 bindings into separate document
> V3: Add RB from Frank
> V4: No change
> ---
>  .../input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml     | 51 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../input/touchscreen/trivial-touch.yaml      |  4 --
>  2 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..1d02aaba64f97
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/input/touchscreen/ilitek,ili210x.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Ilitek ILI21xx/ILI251x V3/V6 touch screen controller with i2c interface
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
> +  - Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas@mailbox.org>
> +
> +properties:
> +  compatible:
> +    enum:
> +      - ilitek,ili210x
> +      - ilitek,ili2117
> +      - ilitek,ili2120
> +      - ilitek,ili251x
> +
> +  reg:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  interrupts:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  reset-gpios:
> +    maxItems: 1
> +
> +  wakeup-source: true
> +
> +allOf:
> +  - $ref: touchscreen.yaml

allOf: should be placed after required: block.

With this one fixed:

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@oss.qualcomm.com>

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[Marek Vasut]

On 1/17/26 12:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:02AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> The old Ilitek touch controllers V3 and V6 can operate without
>> interrupt line, in polling mode. Drop the 'interrupts' property
>> requirement for those four controllers. To avoid overloading the
>> trivial-touch, fork the old Ilitek V3/V6 touch controller binding
>> into separate document.
> 
> One if: block is fine, so IMO, this should stay in original binding
> especially that more devices like some azoteq or semtech might have same
> rule of not requiring interrupt line. Anyway, no big deal.
I am not sure about the other non-ilitek devices, but the fruitboards do 
use at least goodix and etm/edt touch controllers without interrupt line 
too, those I have on my desk (those two have separate, more extensive, 
binding document). I also suspect we will see more of those touch 
controllers with optional interrupt line, so if we do, I think we can 
re-combine the binding documents again ?

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 17/01/2026 16:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 1/17/26 12:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:02AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> The old Ilitek touch controllers V3 and V6 can operate without
>>> interrupt line, in polling mode. Drop the 'interrupts' property
>>> requirement for those four controllers. To avoid overloading the
>>> trivial-touch, fork the old Ilitek V3/V6 touch controller binding
>>> into separate document.
>>
>> One if: block is fine, so IMO, this should stay in original binding
>> especially that more devices like some azoteq or semtech might have same
>> rule of not requiring interrupt line. Anyway, no big deal.
> I am not sure about the other non-ilitek devices, but the fruitboards do 
> use at least goodix and etm/edt touch controllers without interrupt line 
> too, those I have on my desk (those two have separate, more extensive, 
> binding document). I also suspect we will see more of those touch 
> controllers with optional interrupt line, so if we do, I think we can 
> re-combine the binding documents again ?

Yes.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] dt-bindings: touchscreen: trivial-touch: Drop 'interrupts' requirement for old Ilitek

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2026 at 19:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> On 17/01/2026 16:33, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 1/17/26 12:22 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:02AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> The old Ilitek touch controllers V3 and V6 can operate without
> >>> interrupt line, in polling mode. Drop the 'interrupts' property
> >>> requirement for those four controllers. To avoid overloading the
> >>> trivial-touch, fork the old Ilitek V3/V6 touch controller binding
> >>> into separate document.
> >>
> >> One if: block is fine, so IMO, this should stay in original binding
> >> especially that more devices like some azoteq or semtech might have same
> >> rule of not requiring interrupt line. Anyway, no big deal.
> > I am not sure about the other non-ilitek devices, but the fruitboards do
> > use at least goodix and etm/edt touch controllers without interrupt line
> > too, those I have on my desk (those two have separate, more extensive,
> > binding document). I also suspect we will see more of those touch
> > controllers with optional interrupt line, so if we do, I think we can
> > re-combine the binding documents again ?
>
> Yes.

IMHO more churn, and more git blame mismatches...
Why not keep them in a single document in the first place, like in v1?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds