[PATCH] fix n900 dts file to work around 4.1 touchscreen regression on n900
pavel at ucw.cz
Fri May 29 14:02:59 PDT 2015
On Fri 2015-05-29 13:48:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> > > > > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now
> > > > > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that
> > > >
> > > > not Pali, Sebastian.
> > > >
> > > > > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all
> > > > > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted?
> > > >
> > > > We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed.
> > >
> > > No. If the property is wrong, and nobody parsed it, I do not see any reason to
> > > start now.
> > Agreed.
> > But that's not what I'm asking. See a changelog of
> > 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 and compare it with what it
> > actually does.
> > It is buggy. If fuzz is specified but maximum is not, it overwites
> > maximum with zero.
> > Plus it introduces new failure "if (!test_bit(axis, dev->absbit))".
> That is not a new failure. It actually warns users that they trying to
> specify in DT something that will be ignored by the kernel (because
> without that absbit kernel will ignore all requests to that event code).
What if driver sets the bits after parsing device tree?
> > Plus it fails to distinguish between "value not specified in the dt"
> > and "zero is specified in the dt".
> Yes. I am not sure if we should care and support all permutations (ah, I
> pre-setup fuzz in the driver, but override max on X, and I pre-setup
> max on X, but take fuzz from DT). Maybe we should simply document that
> specifying one parameter for an axis will change the rest of them to be
> 0. Not sure though...
Well, the old code did support all permutations. "cleanups" should not
change such details...
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
More information about the linux-arm-kernel