Hi Henrik,
On 05/19/2014 10:04 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> Thanks for the patch series. I think the patch looks great in general. Please
> see some minor comments below.
>
> On 05/06/2014 01:06 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
>> Switch to using the Type-B Multi-Touch protocol.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> index 8a7da61..1b6e4e5 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c
>> @@ -23,9 +23,12 @@
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> #include <linux/i2c.h>
>> #include <linux/input.h>
>> +#include <linux/input/mt.h>
>> #include <linux/input/pixcir_ts.h>
>> #include <linux/gpio.h>
>>
>> +#define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 2
>> +
>> struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
>> struct i2c_client *client;
>> struct input_dev *input;
>> @@ -33,12 +36,25 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data {
>> bool running;
>> };
>>
>> -static void pixcir_ts_poscheck(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *data)
>> +struct pixcir_touch {
>> + int x;
>> + int y;
>> +};
>> +
>> +struct pixcir_report_data {
>> + int num_touches;
>> + struct pixcir_touch touches[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS];
>> +};
>> +
>> +static void pixcir_ts_parse(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata,
>> + struct pixcir_report_data *report)
>> {
>> - struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata = data;
>> u8 rdbuf[10], wrbuf[1] = { 0 };
>> + u8 *bufptr;
>> u8 touch;
>> - int ret;
>> + int ret, i;
>> +
>> + memset(report, 0, sizeof(struct pixcir_report_data));
>>
>> ret = i2c_master_send(tsdata->client, wrbuf, sizeof(wrbuf));
>> if (ret != sizeof(wrbuf)) {
>> @@ -56,45 +72,85 @@ static void pixcir_ts_poscheck(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *data)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - touch = rdbuf[0];
>> - if (touch) {
>> - u16 posx1 = (rdbuf[3] << 8) | rdbuf[2];
>> - u16 posy1 = (rdbuf[5] << 8) | rdbuf[4];
>> - u16 posx2 = (rdbuf[7] << 8) | rdbuf[6];
>> - u16 posy2 = (rdbuf[9] << 8) | rdbuf[8];
>> -
>> - input_report_key(tsdata->input, BTN_TOUCH, 1);
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_X, posx1);
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_Y, posy1);
>> -
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, posx1);
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, posy1);
>> - input_mt_sync(tsdata->input);
>> -
>> - if (touch == 2) {
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input,
>> - ABS_MT_POSITION_X, posx2);
>> - input_report_abs(tsdata->input,
>> - ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, posy2);
>> - input_mt_sync(tsdata->input);
>> - }
>> - } else {
>> - input_report_key(tsdata->input, BTN_TOUCH, 0);
>> + touch = rdbuf[0] & 0x7;
>> + if (touch > PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS)
>> + touch = PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS;
>> +
>> + report->num_touches = touch;
>> + bufptr = &rdbuf[2];
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < touch; i++) {
>> + report->touches[i].x = (bufptr[1] << 8) | bufptr[0];
>> + report->touches[i].y = (bufptr[3] << 8) | bufptr[2];
>> +
>> + bufptr = &bufptr[4];
>> }
>> +}
>
> In many places, the '&ptr[index]' form makes a lot of sense, but here, it would
> have been clearer to use 'bufptr += 4'.
Agreed. I'll update it.
>
>> +
>> +static void pixcir_ts_report(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *ts,
>> + struct pixcir_report_data *report)
>> +{
>> + struct input_mt_pos pos[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS];
>> + int slots[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS];
>> + struct pixcir_touch *touch;
>> + int n, i, slot;
>> + struct device *dev = &ts->client->dev;
>>
>> - input_sync(tsdata->input);
>> + n = report->num_touches;
>> + if (n > PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS)
>> + n = PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> + touch = &report->touches[i];
>> + pos[i].x = touch->x;
>> + pos[i].y = touch->y;
>> + }
>> +
>> + input_mt_assign_slots(ts->input, slots, pos, n);
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> + touch = &report->touches[i];
>> + slot = slots[i];
>> +
>> + input_mt_slot(ts->input, slot);
>> + input_mt_report_slot_state(ts->input,
>> + MT_TOOL_FINGER, true);
>> +
>> + input_event(ts->input, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, touch->x);
>> + input_event(ts->input, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, touch->y);
>> +
>> + dev_dbg(dev, "%d: slot %d, x %d, y %d\n",
>> + i, slot, touch->x, touch->y);
>> + }
>> +
>> + input_mt_sync_frame(ts->input);
>> + input_sync(ts->input);
>> }
>>
>> static irqreturn_t pixcir_ts_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> {
>> struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata = dev_id;
>> const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata = tsdata->chip;
>> + struct pixcir_report_data report;
>>
>> while (tsdata->running) {
>> - pixcir_ts_poscheck(tsdata);
>> -
>> - if (gpio_get_value(pdata->gpio_attb))
>> + /* parse packet */
>> + pixcir_ts_parse(tsdata, &report);
>> +
>> + /* report it */
>> + pixcir_ts_report(tsdata, &report);
>> +
>> + if (gpio_get_value(pdata->gpio_attb)) {
>> + if (report.num_touches) {
>> + /*
>> + * Last report with no finger up?
>> + * Do it now then.
>> + */
>> + input_mt_sync_frame(tsdata->input);
>> + input_sync(tsdata->input);
>
> I think this construct is alright for this particular patch. If anything, it
> points at a need for a better model of interrupted contacts in the core.
OK.
>
>> + }
>> break;
>> + }
>>
>> msleep(20);
>> }
>> @@ -333,6 +389,13 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, 0, pdata->x_max, 0, 0);
>> input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, 0, pdata->y_max, 0, 0);
>>
>> + error = input_mt_init_slots(input, PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS,
>> + INPUT_MT_DIRECT | INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED);
>> + if (error) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Error initializing Multi-Touch slots\n");
>> + return error;
>> + }
>> +
>> input_set_drvdata(input, tsdata);
>>
>> error = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, pdata->gpio_attb,
>>
>
> Reviewed-by: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for the review.
cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
