Hi,
On Thursday 13 November 2014 05:53 PM, Vignesh R wrote:
Hi,
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 06:30 PM, Johannes Pointner wrote:
Hello Vignesh,
I tried your patch version 3 on a customized board and had some
behavior I couldn't explain.
If I only use the touchscreen it works fine but if
On Tuesday 04 November 2014 06:07 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 11/04/2014 12:44 PM, Vignesh R wrote:
I ran following commands
$ evtest /dev/input/touchscreen0
(with heavy item on touchscreen)
and
$ cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device0/scan_elements/in_voltage4_en
(in a
Hi,
On Wednesday 12 November 2014 06:30 PM, Johannes Pointner wrote:
Hello Vignesh,
I tried your patch version 3 on a customized board and had some
behavior I couldn't explain.
If I only use the touchscreen it works fine but if I also read values
from the ADCs then I get a lot of pen_up
Hello Vignesh,
I tried your patch version 3 on a customized board and had some
behavior I couldn't explain.
If I only use the touchscreen it works fine but if I also read values
from the ADCs then I get a lot of pen_up events even if I am still
touching the screen.
For the test I read via
# cat
On Tuesday 04 November 2014 06:07 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 11/04/2014 12:44 PM, Vignesh R wrote:
I ran following commands
$ evtest /dev/input/touchscreen0
(with heavy item on touchscreen)
and
$ cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device0/scan_elements/in_voltage4_en
(in a
On Monday 03 November 2014 11:39 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:38:27PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
This series of patches fix TSC defects related to lag in touchscreen
performance and cursor jump at touch release. The lag was result of
udelay in TSC interrupt handler.
On Monday 03 November 2014 05:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 10/27/2014 08:02 PM, Griffis, Brad wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:34 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Do we really need #3 (and then #4)? Given the complexity we have already,
is there any benefit by decreasing this
On 11/04/2014 12:44 PM, Vignesh R wrote:
I ran following commands
$ evtest /dev/input/touchscreen0
(with heavy item on touchscreen)
and
$ cat /sys/bus/iio/devices/iio\:device0/scan_elements/in_voltage4_en
(in a busy loop)
I tried above experiment on my board but I didn't hit any problem
On 10/27/2014 08:02 PM, Griffis, Brad wrote:
On 10/27/2014 12:34 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Do we really need #3 (and then #4)? Given the complexity we have already, is
there any benefit by decreasing this value?
I specifically requested we add ti,charge-delay to the device tree
On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 04:38:27PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote:
This series of patches fix TSC defects related to lag in touchscreen
performance and cursor jump at touch release. The lag was result of
udelay in TSC interrupt handler. Cursor jump due to false pen-up event.
The patches implement
This series of patches fix TSC defects related to lag in touchscreen
performance and cursor jump at touch release. The lag was result of
udelay in TSC interrupt handler. Cursor jump due to false pen-up event.
The patches implement Advisory 1.0.31 in silicon errata of am335x-evm
to avoid false
On 10/27/2014 12:08 PM, Vignesh R wrote:
This series of patches fix TSC defects related to lag in touchscreen
I will try to look this in the next few days. Do we really need #3 (and
then #4)? Given the complexity we have already, is there any benefit by
decreasing this value? Would someone want
On 10/27/2014 12:34 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
Do we really need #3 (and then #4)? Given the complexity we have already, is
there any benefit by decreasing this value?
I specifically requested we add ti,charge-delay to the device tree because it
is THE critical value to tune for a
13 matches
Mail list logo
