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. Is this
convention documented somewhere?
+
+ 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?
Thanks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
