On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:55:35PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On 06/06/2023 20:44, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 08:12:04PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On 06/06/2023 17:31, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > > Hi Neil, > > > > > > > > On 6/6/23 16:31, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > > These touchscreen ICs support SPI, I2C and I3C interface, up to > > > > > 10 finger touch, stylus and gestures events. > > > > > > > > > > This initial driver is derived from the Goodix goodix_ts_berlin > > > > > available at [1] and [2] and only supports the GT9916 IC > > > > > present on the Qualcomm SM8550 MTP & QRD touch panel. > > > > > > > > > > The current implementation only supports BerlinD, aka GT9916. > > > > > > > > > > Support for advanced features like: > > > > > - Firmware & config update > > > > > - Stylus events > > > > > - Gestures events > > > > > - Previous revisions support (BerlinA or BerlinB) > > > > > is not included in current version. > > > > > > > > > > The current support will work with currently flashed firmware > > > > > and config, and bail out if firmware or config aren't flashed yet. > > > > > > > > What I'm missing here / in the commit msg of > > > > "input: touchscreen: add core support for Goodix Berlin Touchscreen IC" > > > > > > > > is an explanation why this is a new driver instead of adding > > > > support to the existing goodix.c code. > > > > > > > > I assume you have good reasons for this, but it would be good > > > > if you can write the reasons for this down. > > > > > > Sure, should I write it down here and/or update the commit message in a new revision ? > > > > > > Anyway, here's the reasons: > > > - globally the event handling "looks like" the current goodix.c, but again the offsets > > > are again different and none of the register address are the same, and unlike the current > > > support all registers are provided by the "ic_info" structure > > > - while with the current code it *could* be possible to merge it, with a lot of changes, > > > the firmware management looks really different, and it would be really hard to merge. > > > > > > But I may be wrong, and may be misleaded by the goodix driver structure (even if it > > > went through a really heavy cleaning process). > > > > > > Globally it seems they tried to match the "event handling" process of the previous > > > generations, but the firmware interface is completely different. > > > > It is not unprecedented for drivers to share event processing and > > implement several ways/generations of firmware update mechanisms. > > Thanks for your reply, I'm perfectly aware of that, this is why I posted > this as RFC. > > If the event handling is vaguely similar, I'm not sure it's worth refactoring the > current driver since I do not have the old and current IC datasheet nor > HW to check for current support non-regression. > > What I'm sure is that not a single register address, flag or struct is even close > to the current upstream defined ones. OK, it looks like Hans' preference is also to have a separate driver, so let's keep them separate. Thanks. -- Dmitry
