[PATCH v2 1/2] Input: touchscreen-iproc: Add Broadcom iProc touchscreen driver

[Jonathan Richardson]

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.
>>
>