From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754196AbbBKSpk (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:45:40 -0500 Received: from mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.64]:5680 "EHLO mail-gw3-out.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753961AbbBKSpi (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:45:38 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,560,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="56762676" Message-ID: <54DBA34E.8090400@broadcom.com> Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:45:34 -0800 From: Jonathan Richardson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dmitry Torokhov CC: Scott Branden , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Ray Jui , , , , , , "Joe Perches" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver References: <1419027470-7969-1-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <1419027470-7969-2-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <20150115010256.GC9134@dtor-ws> <54B753C7.6000006@broadcom.com> <20150115060713.GA2694@dtor-ws> <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> In-Reply-To: <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pinging maintainers... Am I ok to go ahead with the current rotation implementation? I haven't heard anything further. Any feedback on naming conventions from DT people? Thanks! On 15-01-15 11:51 AM, Jonathan Richardson wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 15-01-14 10:07 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:44:39PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >>> On 15-01-14 05:02 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> Hi Jonathan, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:17:49PM -0800, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "scanning_period", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 1 || val > 256) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "scanning_period must be [1-256]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.scanning_period = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "debounce_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "debounce_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.debounce_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "settling_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 11) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "settling_timeout must be [0-11]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.settling_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "touch_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "touch_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.touch_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "average_data", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 8) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "average_data must be [0-8]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.average_data = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "fifo_threshold", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 31) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fifo_threshold must be [0-31]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.fifo_threshold = val; >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> I think these are dveice specific and thus should have "brcm," prefix. >>> I'm confused as to why we need the brcm prefix? Other device tree >>> bindings we have for other drivers do not need such prefix. >> >> Properties that are not standard on the system (reg, interrupts, >> clkocks, etc) or subsystem level customarily carry the vendor prefix so >> that they do not clash with newly added global or subsystem properties. >> >>> Is this >>> convention documented somewhere? >> >> Not sure. I glanced through Documentation/devicetree and do not see it >> spelled out. Device tree overlords, what say you? > > Let me know. I haven't seen this before either. I will change the > entries to use dashes though instead of underscores but will wait until > these other issues are decided on before sending out another patch. > >> >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = TS_ROTATION_0; >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "ts-rotation", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = val; >>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "ts rotation [%d] degrees\n", >>>>> + 90 * priv->ts_rotation); >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> This I am not quite sure about - if we want rotation or swap+invert. You >>>> are CCed on another email (tsc2007) that talks about need of generic >>>> touchscreen transforms in input core/of bindings. >>> Does such generic binding exist today? If not, I would like to go >>> with this implementation and update to the new binding if/when it >>> exists? >> >> Not yet but there several people interested. I think we have enough time >> till 3.20 to hash it out properly. > > I think the rotation is simpler personally. Everyone would understand > rotation refers to how it's oriented but I'm not sure everyone would > immediately know how it is wired. Let me know what is decided and I'll > make any changes required. > > Thanks, > Jon > > >> >> Thanks. >> > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Richardson Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:45:34 -0800 Message-ID: <54DBA34E.8090400@broadcom.com> References: <1419027470-7969-1-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <1419027470-7969-2-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <20150115010256.GC9134@dtor-ws> <54B753C7.6000006@broadcom.com> <20150115060713.GA2694@dtor-ws> <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Scott Branden , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Ray Jui , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Joe Perches List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Pinging maintainers... Am I ok to go ahead with the current rotation implementation? I haven't heard anything further. Any feedback on naming conventions from DT people? Thanks! On 15-01-15 11:51 AM, Jonathan Richardson wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 15-01-14 10:07 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:44:39PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >>> On 15-01-14 05:02 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> Hi Jonathan, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:17:49PM -0800, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "scanning_period", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 1 || val > 256) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "scanning_period must be [1-256]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.scanning_period = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "debounce_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "debounce_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.debounce_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "settling_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 11) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "settling_timeout must be [0-11]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.settling_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "touch_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "touch_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.touch_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "average_data", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 8) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "average_data must be [0-8]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.average_data = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "fifo_threshold", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 31) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fifo_threshold must be [0-31]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.fifo_threshold = val; >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> I think these are dveice specific and thus should have "brcm," prefix. >>> I'm confused as to why we need the brcm prefix? Other device tree >>> bindings we have for other drivers do not need such prefix. >> >> Properties that are not standard on the system (reg, interrupts, >> clkocks, etc) or subsystem level customarily carry the vendor prefix so >> that they do not clash with newly added global or subsystem properties. >> >>> Is this >>> convention documented somewhere? >> >> Not sure. I glanced through Documentation/devicetree and do not see it >> spelled out. Device tree overlords, what say you? > > Let me know. I haven't seen this before either. I will change the > entries to use dashes though instead of underscores but will wait until > these other issues are decided on before sending out another patch. > >> >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = TS_ROTATION_0; >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "ts-rotation", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = val; >>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "ts rotation [%d] degrees\n", >>>>> + 90 * priv->ts_rotation); >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> This I am not quite sure about - if we want rotation or swap+invert. You >>>> are CCed on another email (tsc2007) that talks about need of generic >>>> touchscreen transforms in input core/of bindings. >>> Does such generic binding exist today? If not, I would like to go >>> with this implementation and update to the new binding if/when it >>> exists? >> >> Not yet but there several people interested. I think we have enough time >> till 3.20 to hash it out properly. > > I think the rotation is simpler personally. Everyone would understand > rotation refers to how it's oriented but I'm not sure everyone would > immediately know how it is wired. Let me know what is decided and I'll > make any changes required. > > Thanks, > Jon > > >> >> Thanks. >> > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jonathar@broadcom.com (Jonathan Richardson) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:45:34 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver In-Reply-To: <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> References: <1419027470-7969-1-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <1419027470-7969-2-git-send-email-jonathar@broadcom.com> <20150115010256.GC9134@dtor-ws> <54B753C7.6000006@broadcom.com> <20150115060713.GA2694@dtor-ws> <54B81A4A.9020905@broadcom.com> Message-ID: <54DBA34E.8090400@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Pinging maintainers... Am I ok to go ahead with the current rotation implementation? I haven't heard anything further. Any feedback on naming conventions from DT people? Thanks! On 15-01-15 11:51 AM, Jonathan Richardson wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 15-01-14 10:07 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:44:39PM -0800, Scott Branden wrote: >>> On 15-01-14 05:02 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>> Hi Jonathan, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 02:17:49PM -0800, Jonathan Richardson wrote: >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "scanning_period", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 1 || val > 256) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "scanning_period must be [1-256]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.scanning_period = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "debounce_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "debounce_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.debounce_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "settling_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 11) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "settling_timeout must be [0-11]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.settling_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "touch_timeout", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 255) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "touch_timeout must be [0-255]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.touch_timeout = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "average_data", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 8) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "average_data must be [0-8]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.average_data = val; >>>>> + } >>>>> + >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "fifo_threshold", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + if (val < 0 || val > 31) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "fifo_threshold must be [0-31]\n"); >>>>> + return -EINVAL; >>>>> + } >>>>> + priv->cfg_params.fifo_threshold = val; >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> I think these are dveice specific and thus should have "brcm," prefix. >>> I'm confused as to why we need the brcm prefix? Other device tree >>> bindings we have for other drivers do not need such prefix. >> >> Properties that are not standard on the system (reg, interrupts, >> clkocks, etc) or subsystem level customarily carry the vendor prefix so >> that they do not clash with newly added global or subsystem properties. >> >>> Is this >>> convention documented somewhere? >> >> Not sure. I glanced through Documentation/devicetree and do not see it >> spelled out. Device tree overlords, what say you? > > Let me know. I haven't seen this before either. I will change the > entries to use dashes though instead of underscores but will wait until > these other issues are decided on before sending out another patch. > >> >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = TS_ROTATION_0; >>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(np, "ts-rotation", &val) >= 0) { >>>>> + priv->ts_rotation = val; >>>>> + dev_dbg(dev, "ts rotation [%d] degrees\n", >>>>> + 90 * priv->ts_rotation); >>>>> + } >>>> >>>> This I am not quite sure about - if we want rotation or swap+invert. You >>>> are CCed on another email (tsc2007) that talks about need of generic >>>> touchscreen transforms in input core/of bindings. >>> Does such generic binding exist today? If not, I would like to go >>> with this implementation and update to the new binding if/when it >>> exists? >> >> Not yet but there several people interested. I think we have enough time >> till 3.20 to hash it out properly. > > I think the rotation is simpler personally. Everyone would understand > rotation refers to how it's oriented but I'm not sure everyone would > immediately know how it is wired. Let me know what is decided and I'll > make any changes required. > > Thanks, > Jon > > >> >> Thanks. >> >