From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from layka.disroot.org (layka.disroot.org [178.21.23.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3C4739792E; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 15:43:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.21.23.139 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785339824; cv=none; b=YkRNl468X8wjxR5N5vhe9lMd+bf4eGQlAZCwllHgKFkEiwip/zJyXiJgUfwf+f1J5MPM16fI0sFqeO3WofDaycWKYTjQ1R4yfz8KODRgvRNgRA62GSgr12DcvJwovEocxU+NaP9JKYNQeS+HKzBIQnNJg8rPQoX/L3u9HpBqp5Q= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1785339824; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2A7Ua+gGboyx9Qu3yZUlx+cQ5spqoldtu1knNnc9JE8=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:From:To:Cc: References:In-Reply-To; b=XsaOOWqUmevV7JK/TNes7jOgCxxu5ZTgimzx8RkNWp2SNToWoMQKdzu2Aop4Jp/rjFx1x2T51976mEZND9e0R2l86pOOKuN4G4gP9smoa0lOoDL/NFXEzouU63Tg8ztcjSpfBLlUHId4PY+ZMsu8N0VeuWRm/QsfRmjo7qmezNs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=disroot.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=disroot.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=disroot.org header.i=@disroot.org header.b=OXN1/If7; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.21.23.139 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=disroot.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=disroot.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=disroot.org header.i=@disroot.org header.b="OXN1/If7" Received: from mail01.layka.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068578616C; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:43:40 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: SPAM Filter at disroot.org Received: from layka.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavis, port 10024) with ESMTP id xLk8gZc0mQH4; Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:43:39 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1785339819; bh=2A7Ua+gGboyx9Qu3yZUlx+cQ5spqoldtu1knNnc9JE8=; h=Date:Subject:From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To; b=OXN1/If7d5tooCBw/+/V1NtXl87ApdLG3jJbzBj6rNm3+Gq7Y0gRW0ofxXcM9bMLH eoAJaw3Eow8cecVoB32hOUHGBqRgY75c8I1nssgg+iFEmJY0qzesY1VAGRN/2nN9OO BBs0Jl6MYPyVH/OL1b7byvp51FdMxTD2m3RCSTRDXY/nkjC9y6Gxzumlo4FyIucevI n94SRroFoA2HZhrBUiR9w4A4PcMr6oXhXiC1PSTmjBKPUpa7SU44KE5sOyaTzTegpO cndn471sxcIw1kfdMxsYG3WYpbp8RnL+Dle9bxNeN3EVSdesxWxSWyJmq2mV3UDG7d lDFOZ44ktr+MA== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-input@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 21:13:25 +0530 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Input: zinitix - do not ignore non-moving fingers From: "Kaustabh Chakraborty" To: "Dmitry Torokhov" , "Kaustabh Chakraborty" Cc: "Rob Herring" , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , "Conor Dooley" , "Michael Srba" , "Linus Walleij" , "Peter Griffin" , "Alim Akhtar" , , , , , References: <20260724-zinitix-modes-v1-0-f6df7d86a878@disroot.org> <20260724-zinitix-modes-v1-2-f6df7d86a878@disroot.org> In-Reply-To: On 2026-07-24 12:24 -07:00, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Kaustabh, > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 12:54:04AM +0530, Kaustabh Chakraborty wrote: >> With the ZT7548 touchscreen present in the Galaxy J6, multitouch does no= t >> work reliably. This is due to the fact that the driver reports fingers >> only when their state is changed, so it's either placed against the >> scren, moved, or drawn away from the screen. >>=20 >> The function which is responsible for this is zinitix_report_finger(). >> This function is called from the IRQ handler, under the following >> condition: >>=20 >> if (p->sub_status & SUB_BIT_EXIST) >> zinitix_report_finger(bt541, i, p); >>=20 >> This implies and ensures that every valid finger must have the >> SUB_BIT_EXIST flag. >>=20 >> However, at the beginning of the function, it refuses to recognize any >> finger if it has none of SUB_BIT_UP | SUB_BIT_DOWN | SUB_BIT_MOVE. This >> excludes fingers in reports which do not move from the position since >> the previous interrupt. Add SUB_BIT_EXIST to the list of valid bits. > > This makes the check basically a no-op as SUB_BIT_EXIST would always be > set when we reach this function. It may very well be that we want to > delete this check altogether, or maybe we need to add SUB_BIT_UPDATE and > SUB_BIT_WAIT. I am curious what status bits you see when this condition > (original) triggers for you... I see 0x03 [EXIST | DOWN] when the finger touches the screen, and 0x05 [EXIST | MOVE] when it moves. When it stays in the same place (this is triggered in multitouch where one finger moves generating an event but the other is stagnant) it reports 0x01 [EXIST]. When it's lifted up it reports 0x08 [UP]. It looks like report_finger() is meant to be called when the finger is up but it isn't because EXIST is not set during the UP event. So I guess the solution is to remove the guard in the IRQ func and call report_finger() unconditionally. >>=20 >> Signed-off-by: Kaustabh Chakraborty >> --- >> drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>=20 >> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c b/drivers/input/touchsc= reen/zinitix.c >> index 3421b8ffb19b..fdcb80f52c91 100644 >> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c >> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c >> @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ static void zinitix_report_finger(struct bt541_ts_da= ta *bt541, int slot, >> u16 x, y; >> =20 >> if (unlikely(!(p->sub_status & >> - (SUB_BIT_UP | SUB_BIT_DOWN | SUB_BIT_MOVE)))) { >> + (SUB_BIT_EXIST | SUB_BIT_UP | SUB_BIT_DOWN | SUB_BIT_MOVE)))) = { >> dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "unknown finger event %#02x\n", >> p->sub_status); >> return; >>=20 > > Thanks.