[PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce OnePlus 6/6T touchscreen compatible

[PATCH v2 0/2] Introduce OnePlus 6/6T touchscreen compatible

[David Heidelberg via B4 Relay]

Mostly related to the
  https://codeberg.org/sdm845/linux/commits/branch/b4/synaptics-rmi4
series, but independent on other changes which I trying to upstream for
more than one year.

Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
---
Changes in v2:
- Add R-b tag.
- Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20260408-synaptics-rmi4-dt-v1-0-2d32bacce673@ixit.cz

---
David Heidelberg (2):
      dt-bindings: input: syna,rmi4: Document syna,rmi4-s3706b
      arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml | 11 ++++++++---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi    |  2 +-
 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: 5200f5f493f79f14bbdc349e402a40dfb32f23c8
change-id: 20260408-synaptics-rmi4-dt-8aebf31790dc

Best regards,
-- 
David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>

[PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: input: syna,rmi4: Document syna,rmi4-s3706b

[David Heidelberg via B4 Relay]

From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>

Mostly irrelevant for authentic Synaptics touchscreens, but very important
for applying workarounds to cheap TS knockoffs.

These knockoffs work well with the downstream driver, and since the user
has no way to distinguish them, later in this patch set, we introduce
workarounds to ensure they function as well as possible.

Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml | 11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml
index 8685ef4481f4a..fb4804ac3544d 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/syna,rmi4.yaml
@@ -13,19 +13,24 @@ maintainers:
 
 description: |
   The Synaptics RMI4 (Register Mapped Interface 4) core is able to support RMI4
   devices using different transports (I2C, SPI) and different functions (e.g.
   Function 1, 2D sensors using Function 11 or 12).
 
 properties:
   compatible:
-    enum:
-      - syna,rmi4-i2c
-      - syna,rmi4-spi
+    oneOf:
+      - enum:
+          - syna,rmi4-i2c
+          - syna,rmi4-spi
+      - items:
+          - enum:
+              - syna,rmi4-s3706b  # OnePlus 6/6T
+          - const: syna,rmi4-i2c
 
   reg:
     maxItems: 1
 
   '#address-cells':
     const: 1
 
   '#size-cells':

-- 
2.53.0

[PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[David Heidelberg via B4 Relay]

From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>

We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
followup series.

Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
@@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
 	};
 };
 
 &i2c12 {
 	status = "okay";
 	clock-frequency = <400000>;
 
 	synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
-		compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
+		compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
 		reg = <0x20>;
 		#address-cells = <1>;
 		#size-cells = <0>;
 		interrupts-extended = <&tlmm 125 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING>;
 
 		pinctrl-names = "default";
 		pinctrl-0 = <&ts_default_pins>;
 

-- 
2.53.0

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi David,

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
> 
> We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
> can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
> followup series.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> @@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
>  	};
>  };
>  
>  &i2c12 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  	clock-frequency = <400000>;
>  
>  	synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
> -		compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
> +		compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";

So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[David Heidelberg]

On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
>>
>> We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
>> can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
>> followup series.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>> index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>> @@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
>>   	};
>>   };
>>   
>>   &i2c12 {
>>   	status = "okay";
>>   	clock-frequency = <400000>;
>>   
>>   	synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
>> -		compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
>> +		compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
> 
> So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
> implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
> fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?

The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly.

The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement it 
properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission.

With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor and 
installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences for the 
replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working same as they do 
on Android without affecting other devices.

David

> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
David Heidelberg

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[David Heidelberg]

On 28/05/2026 00:13, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> Hi David,
>>
>> On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
>>> From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
>>>
>>> We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
>>> can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
>>> followup series.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi b/arch/ 
>>> arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>>> index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
>>> @@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
>>>       };
>>>   };
>>>   &i2c12 {
>>>       status = "okay";
>>>       clock-frequency = <400000>;
>>>       synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
>>> -        compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
>>> +        compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
>>
>> So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
>> implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
>> fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?
> 
> The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly.
> 
> The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement it 
> properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission.
> 
> With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor and 
> installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences for the 
> replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working same as they do 
> on Android without affecting other devices.

Hello Dmitry.

May I ask what is currently preventing this series from moving forward?

The first version was posted in 2023 [1]. I picked it up again in 2025 [2] and 
am now on the 9th iteration (this patchset). At this point, the series has been 
under discussion for well over a year, with relatively little feedback and 
increasingly long gaps between review rounds.

The current approach is based on the guidance I have received so far, including 
suggestions from the device-tree maintainers. When concerns were raised, I tried 
to address them and rework the series accordingly.

What I am struggling with is understanding what specific issue still needs to be 
resolved before these patches can be accepted. If there are remaining 
requirements, objections to the approach, or technical concerns that I have not 
addressed, I would appreciate having them stated explicitly so I can work on them.

I also split out the straightforward, self-contained changes in the hope that at 
least those could progress independently while I continued working on any 
follow-up requirements. However, even those patches do not appear to be moving 
forward.

Could you please clarify what outcome you would like to see from this series, 
and what concrete changes would be required to get it accepted?

Thank you,
David


[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230929-caleb-rmi4-quirks-v1-0-cc3c703f022d@linaro.org/
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250402-synaptics-rmi4-v4-0-1bb95959e564@ixit.cz/

> 
> David
> 
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
> 

-- 
David Heidelberg

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm845-oneplus: Update compatible to include model

[Dmitry Torokhov]

Hi David,

On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 07:11:45PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
> On 28/05/2026 00:13, David Heidelberg wrote:
> > On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Hi David,
> > > 
> > > On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > > From: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
> > > > 
> > > > We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
> > > > can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
> > > > followup series.
> > > > 
> > > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <david@ixit.cz>
> > > > ---
> > > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
> > > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> > > > b/arch/ arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> > > > index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
> > > > @@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
> > > >       };
> > > >   };
> > > >   &i2c12 {
> > > >       status = "okay";
> > > >       clock-frequency = <400000>;
> > > >       synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
> > > > -        compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
> > > > +        compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
> > > 
> > > So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
> > > implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
> > > fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?
> > 
> > The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly.
> > 
> > The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement
> > it properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission.
> > 
> > With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor
> > and installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences
> > for the replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working
> > same as they do on Android without affecting other devices.
> 
> Hello Dmitry.
> 
> May I ask what is currently preventing this series from moving forward?
> 
> The first version was posted in 2023 [1]. I picked it up again in 2025 [2]
> and am now on the 9th iteration (this patchset). At this point, the series
> has been under discussion for well over a year, with relatively little
> feedback and increasingly long gaps between review rounds.
> 
> The current approach is based on the guidance I have received so far,
> including suggestions from the device-tree maintainers. When concerns were
> raised, I tried to address them and rework the series accordingly.
> 
> What I am struggling with is understanding what specific issue still needs
> to be resolved before these patches can be accepted. If there are remaining
> requirements, objections to the approach, or technical concerns that I have
> not addressed, I would appreciate having them stated explicitly so I can
> work on them.
> 
> I also split out the straightforward, self-contained changes in the hope
> that at least those could progress independently while I continued working
> on any follow-up requirements. However, even those patches do not appear to
> be moving forward.
> 
> Could you please clarify what outcome you would like to see from this
> series, and what concrete changes would be required to get it accepted?

I am still confused about how you want to differentiate between the full
RMI4 support vs the OnePlus flavor. The "syna,rmi4-s3706b", as you
mentioned, implements RMI4 protocol properly, so we do not need to
actually have it documented neither in binding nor in DTS.

The issue you have with after-market parts that are not compliant and we
need to figure out how to deal with them. Inside the driver I
essentially need a"incomplete protocol" flag that we can use to
implement additional checks or skip known to be not implemented
functions/queries. In DT we could introduce something like
"oneplus,rmi4-i2c" that is decidedly not compatible with "syna,rmi4-i2c"
and neither one should be a fallback for the other.

This of course needs buy-in from DT maintainers.

Does this make sense?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry