Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] Input: mt6779-keypad - support double keys matrix

Mattijs Korpershoek
2022-07-21T14:51:57Z

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote:

> Il 20/07/22 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
>> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
>> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
>> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys
>>
>> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
>> of pins required for physical keys.
>>
>> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.
>>
>> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
>> device tree property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>> #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK GENMASK(13, 0)
>> #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS 256
>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL 0x0020
>> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE BIT(0)
>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL GENMASK(15, 10)
>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW GENMASK(9, 4)
>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c) GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
>> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad {
>> struct clk *clk;
>> u32 n_rows;
>> u32 n_cols;
>> + bool double_keys;
>> DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
>> };
>>
>> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> continue;
>>
>> key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
>> - row = key / 9;
>> - col = key % 9;
>> + if (keypad->double_keys) {
>> + row = key / 13;
>> + col = (key % 13) / 2;
>> + } else {
>> + row = key / 9;
>> + col = key % 9;
>> + }
>
> I don't fully like this if branch permanently evaluating true or false, as no
> runtime can actually change this result...
>
> In practice, it's fine, but I was wondering if anyone would disagree with the
> following proposal...
>
> struct mt6779_keypad {
> .......
> void (*calc_row_col)(unsigned int *row, unsigned int *col);
> };
>
> In mt6779_keypad_irq_handler:
>
> key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
> keypad->calc_row_col(&row, &col);
>
> and below...
>
>>
>> scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
>> /* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
>> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>
>> wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
>>
>> + keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
>> +
>> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
>> keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
>>
>> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
>> (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
>>
>> + if (keypad->double_keys)
>
> keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_double_kp;
>
>> + regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
>> + MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
>> +
>
> } else {
> keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_single_kp;
> }
>
>> regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
>> MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
>> regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,
>
> what do you think?

Hi Angelo,

Thank you for your detailed suggestion. I like it and since I have to
resend a v2 anyways, I will consider implementing it.
On the other hand, I'm a little reluctant because it means that I'll
have to remove Matthias's reviewed-by :(

>
> Cheers,
> Angelo