On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/28/2014 03:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> >> On 07/28/2014 02:20 PM, Yufeng Shen wrote: > > ... > >>> Where did you get the configuration file ? It is possible that we rely >>> too much on mxt_start to turn on the T9.CTRL bit and have neglected >>> its setting in the config file. >>> If you can tell me where you get the config file I can do a check. >> >> >> It was already flashed into the touchpad when I received the board. I >> did try to track down the firmware/config files a few months ago, but >> didn't manage to; I was told since they were already flashed so I didn't >> need them. The board is Venice2. > > > OK, I received the configuration and firmware file that's supposed to be in > the touchpad. > > I can see that the config file I was given has the "83" byte in the T9 > configuration, and in fact /almost/ exactly matches the configuration I > have. I don't know why my T9 configuration was wrong before, but I suspect > it's not worth trying to track that down. > > Anyway, here's the diff between the two config files: > >> # diff -u mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml 224sl.raw >> --- mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml 2014-07-25 19:41:45.000000000 >> +0000 >> +++ 224sl.raw 2014-07-28 23:25:49.000000000 +0000 >> @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@ >> OBP_RAW V1 >> 82 01 10 AA 12 0C 16 >> F5AF33 >> -000000 >> -0025 0000 0082 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> +E21E65 >> 0026 0000 0008 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >> 0007 0000 0004 20 10 32 00 >> 0008 0000 000A 1E 00 28 28 00 00 00 00 00 00 > > > It seems that the T25(?) entry is missing in the new/expected configuration > file. I figured I'd try out the new/expected configuration file, so did: > T37 (0x25) is DEBUG_DIAGNOSTIC object which the host can read debugging info from. It is not useful to have a initial config for it so usually CrOS system would just don't include configuration for this object. Nick, I want to confirm with you that does T37 contribute to config checksum computation ? > # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --load 224sl.raw > # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --save > mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml > > At this point, mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml contains identical > content to mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml (my previous backup). It looks > like the new configuration isn't being loaded correctly, or perhaps > configuration loading doesn't delete entries that are simply not in the new > configuration file? > Yeah, I would guess since T37 is not in the config, so whatever in the NVRAM stays the same and when you --save its original value gets dumped. > I subsequently did the following in case --save is reading from the NVRAM > rather than RAM: > > # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --backup > # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --save > mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml > > ... but that made no difference. > > I haven't yet tried upgrading or otherwise using the new firmware image. I'd > like to make sure config load/save is fully working first, in case there's > any common problem between the two. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
