Re: [QUESTION] Plans for GDIX1003 Support in Goodix Touchscreen Driver

[Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>]

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 01, 2025 at 12:36:40PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi WeiKang,
> 
> On 27-Feb-25 12:36 PM, Weikang Guo wrote:
> > Hi, Hans
> > 
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:09, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi WeiKang,
> >>
> >> On 25-Feb-25 3:04 AM, Weikang Guo wrote:
> >>> Hi Bastien, Hans, Dmitry,
> >>>
> >>> I am currently working on the Ayaneo Flip DS device, which I installed Kali
> >>> Linux with kernel version 6.8.11-amd. This device has two touchscreens,
> >>> but only one is functional. After investigating, I found that the second
> >>> touchscreen has the device ID GDIX1003(confirmed by exporting the results
> >>> through acpidump), and upon comparing with the current driver, I noticed
> >>> that only GDIX1001, GDIX1002, and GDX9110 are supported.
> >>>
> >>> I have also reviewed the ACPI description and can provide the details if
> >>> needed. Any guidance or updates on this would be greatly appreciated.
> >>
> >> I think this might just work with the existing goodix driver, just
> >> add the new GDIX1003 HID to the goodix_acpi_match table:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c
> >> index a3e8a51c9144..4b497540ed2d 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/goodix.c
> >> @@ -1519,6 +1519,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(i2c, goodix_ts_id);
> >>  static const struct acpi_device_id goodix_acpi_match[] = {
> >>         { "GDIX1001", 0 },
> >>         { "GDIX1002", 0 },
> >> +       { "GDIX1003", 0 },
> >>         { "GDX9110", 0 },
> >>         { }
> >>  };
> >>
> >> Note I'm not sure this will work, but is worth a try.
> >>
> > 
> > It works, thank you very much.
> 
> Thank you for testing.
> 
> I've submitted a patch upstream to add this new hardware-ID
> to the kernel:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20250301113525.6997-1-hdegoede@redhat.com/

Raphael La Greca has reported this issue as well in Debian at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2025/10/msg00013.html an
confirmed the change to work.

Any chance this can be applied as proposed? Did the patch submission
felt trought the cracks?

Regards,
Salvatore