Hi Dimitry,
First of all, thanks for your feedback
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Walter,
>
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 11:58:56PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote:
>> This patch adds the missing support for OF to the adxl34x digital
>> accelerometer. This is a basic version which supports the main
>> optional parameters. This implementation copies the default values
>> to the adxl34x_platform_data structure and overrides the values
>> that are passed from the device tree.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Walter Lozano <walter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c
>> index 2b2d02f..b3e06a3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/adxl34x.c
>> @@ -16,6 +16,8 @@
>> #include <linux/workqueue.h>
>> #include <linux/input/adxl34x.h>
>> #include <linux/module.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>>
>> #include "adxl34x.h"
>>
>> @@ -688,13 +690,113 @@ static void adxl34x_input_close(struct input_dev *input)
>> mutex_unlock(&ac->mutex);
>> }
>>
>> +void adxl34x_parse_dt(struct device *dev, struct adxl34x_platform_data *pdata){
>> + if (!dev->of_node)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + pdata = kzalloc(sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +
>> + memcpy(pdata, &adxl34x_default_init, sizeof(struct adxl34x_platform_data));
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,tap-axis-control",
>> + &pdata->tap_axis_control);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,tap-threshold",
>> + &pdata->tap_threshold);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,tap-duration",
>> + &pdata->tap_duration);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,tap-latency",
>> + &pdata->tap_latency);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,tap-window",
>> + &pdata->tap_window);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,act-axis-control",
>> + &pdata->act_axis_control);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,activity-threshold",
>> + &pdata->activity_threshold);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,inactivity-threshold",
>> + &pdata->inactivity_threshold);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,inactivity-time",
>> + &pdata->inactivity_time);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,free-fall-threshold",
>> + &pdata->free_fall_threshold);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,free-fall-time",
>> + &pdata->free_fall_time);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,data-rate",
>> + &pdata->data_rate);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,data-range",
>> + &pdata->data_range);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,low-power-mode",
>> + &pdata->low_power_mode);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,power-mode",
>> + &pdata->power_mode);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,fifo-mode",
>> + &pdata->fifo_mode);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,watermark",
>> + &pdata->watermark);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,use-int2",
>> + &pdata->use_int2);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,orientation-enable",
>> + &pdata->orientation_enable);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,deadzone-angle",
>> + &pdata->deadzone_angle);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u8(dev->of_node, "adi,divisor-length",
>> + &pdata->divisor_length);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-type",
>> + &pdata->ev_type);
>
> All these ev* properties are Linux-specific so should have linux prefix
> and not adi.
Yes, I have many doubts about these parameters. First I'm not sure if anybody
will need to change them as the accelerometer reports absolute values.
I was thinking
about omitting them but I would like someone else opinion.
The default values for these parameters are
.ev_type = EV_ABS,
.ev_code_x = ABS_X, /* EV_REL */
.ev_code_y = ABS_Y, /* EV_REL */
.ev_code_z = ABS_Z, /* EV_REL */
.ev_code_tap = {BTN_TOUCH, BTN_TOUCH, BTN_TOUCH}, /* EV_KEY {x,y,z} */
In case if it is worthy should I add nodes for each different event?
For example
axisx{
label = "Axis X";
linux,code = <0>;
}
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-x",
>> + &pdata->ev_code_x);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-y",
>> + &pdata->ev_code_y);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-z",
>> + &pdata->ev_code_z);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-tap",
>> + pdata->ev_code_tap, 3);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-ff",
>> + &pdata->ev_code_ff);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-code-act-inactivity",
>> + &pdata->ev_code_act_inactivity);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-codes-orient-2d",
>> + pdata->ev_codes_orient_2d, 4);
>> +
>> + of_property_read_u32_array(dev->of_node, "adi,ev-codes-orient-3d",
>> + pdata->ev_codes_orient_3d, 6);
>> +
>> +}
>> +
>> struct adxl34x *adxl34x_probe(struct device *dev, int irq,
>> bool fifo_delay_default,
>> const struct adxl34x_bus_ops *bops)
>> {
>> struct adxl34x *ac;
>> struct input_dev *input_dev;
>> - const struct adxl34x_platform_data *pdata;
>> + struct adxl34x_platform_data *pdata;
>> int err, range, i;
>> unsigned char revid;
>>
>> @@ -714,6 +816,10 @@ struct adxl34x *adxl34x_probe(struct device *dev, int irq,
>> ac->fifo_delay = fifo_delay_default;
>>
>> pdata = dev_get_platdata(dev);
>> +
>> + if (!pdata && dev->of_node)
>> + adxl34x_parse_dt(dev, pdata);
>> +
>> if (!pdata) {
>
> Umm, what's changing data pointer? Was this tested?
>
You are right. I've tested a previous version, but then I make some changes as
I have some doubts about how is the better way to handle the compatibility
with board files.
My initial intention was to keep the original code as much as I can, so in case
of using board files the pdata is set to adxl34x_default_init, but if
DT is used,
memory is allocated and the default parameters are copied. Then in the remove,
only if DT is used free the memory (not included in this patch).
So as I wasn't quite sure if this was the best approach I send this patch to get
some comments. Probably I should send a RFC...
>> dev_dbg(dev,
>> "No platform data: Using default initialization\n");
>> --
>> 1.7.10.4
>>
Thanks again for your time and comments.
Regards,
Walter
--
Walter Lozano, VanguardiaSur
www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
--
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
