Julian Calaby <[email protected]> writes:
>> Modified
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt
>> index aef5779..b4ea9c4 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/sun4i.txt
>> @@ -7,9 +7,13 @@ Required properties:
>> - interrupts: interrupt to which the chip is connected
>>
>> Optional properties:
>> - - allwinner,ts-attached: boolean indicating that an actual touchscreen is
>> - attached to the controller
>> -
>> + - allwinner,ts-attached : boolean indicating that an actual
>> touchscreen
>> + is attached to the controller
>> + - allwinner,ts-sensitive-adjust : integer (4 bits), adjust sensitivity
>> + between 0 (least sensitive) and 15
>> + (defaults to 15)
>> + todo: added in 4.x?
>> + is there some "standard" way to track
>> this?
>
> It's called "Sensitive level" in the FEX files, so I'd recommend
> calling it that here to help people when they're converting FEX files,
> however the code calls it sensitive adjust so both are probably
> equally good.
the A20 manual calls it TP_SENSITIVE_ADJUST
=> changed to tp-sensitive-adjust
see also patch just submitted
>> Example:
>>
>> rtp: rtp@01c25000 {
>> @@ -17,4 +21,5 @@ Example:
>> reg = <0x01c25000 0x100>;
>> interrupts = <29>;
>> allwinner,ts-attached;
>> + allwinner,ts-sensitive-adjust = <0>;
>> };
>> Modified drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c
>> b/drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c
>> index e692f8e..9ffff73 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/sun4i-ts.c
>> @@ -216,6 +216,7 @@ static int sun4i_ts_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> struct device *hwmon;
>> int error;
>> bool ts_attached;
>> + u32 ts_sensitive_adjust = 15; /* use old fixed value as default */
>>
>> ts = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(struct sun4i_ts_data), GFP_KERNEL);
>> if (!ts)
>> @@ -263,11 +264,19 @@ static int sun4i_ts_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> writel(ADC_CLK_SEL(0) | ADC_CLK_DIV(2) | FS_DIV(7) | T_ACQ(63),
>> ts->base + TP_CTRL0);
>>
>> + /* optional property
>> + todo:
>> + - use of_property_read_u8 ?
>> + - check range / 4bits, 0 - 15 ?
>> + "device tree schemas and validation"
>> + http://lwn.net/Articles/568217/
>> + or clamp? or ... */
>> + of_property_read_u32(np, "allwinner,ts-sensitive-adjust",
>> &ts_sensitive_adjust);
>> +
>
> Personally, if there's a u8 version of of_property_read() I'd use that
> (and make the variable above a u8 also). Either way there needs to be
> some level of validation and clamping before it gets passed into
> writel() below.
after taking a look at the other drivers, i think of_property_read_u32
is easier and the devicetree is supposed to have valid values
>
>> /*
>> - * sensitive_adjust = 15 : max, which is not all that sensitive,
>> * tp_mode = 0 : only x and y coordinates, as we don't use dual touch
>> */
>> - writel(TP_SENSITIVE_ADJUST(0) | TP_MODE_SELECT(0),
>> + writel(TP_SENSITIVE_ADJUST(ts_sensitive_adjust) | TP_MODE_SELECT(0),
>
> I'm guessing this is on top of your original patch? You should make
> your patches on top of upstream.
fixed
> Thanks,
thanks,
jens
--
Prisirah - Building digital photo frames for family and friends using
open-source hardware. http://karme.de/prisirah/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
