On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 11:05:29PM +0100, ulrik.debie-os@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the patch, see below my feedback on your patch.
> Can you provide the contents of fw_verison, capabilities and samples ?
>
> It this fw bug present on multiple laptops ?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:59:17PM +0800, KT Liao wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:59:17 +0800
> > From: KT Liao <kt.liao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
> > dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: phoenix@xxxxxxxxxx, kt.liao@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [PATCH] Input: elantech - Add a special mode for a specific FW The
> > touchapd which sample ver is 0x74 and hw_version is 0x03 have a fw bug
> > which will cause crush sometimes, I add some work-around for it and our
> > customer ask us to upstream the patch Signed-off-by: KT Liao
> > <kt.liao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> It seems that the newlines got lost when you used git-send-email. The
> subject should be a oneliner, the remaining part should go to the mail body.
I think KT forgets to add an empty line between patch subject and body
when committing to their tree.
>
> > X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4
> > X-Mailing-List: linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > ---
> > drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c | 152 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 131 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> > index db7d1d6..acfe7f2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> > @@ -539,6 +539,30 @@ static void elantech_report_absolute_v3(struct psmouse *psmouse,
> > input_sync(dev);
> > }
> >
> > +static psmouse_ret_t elantech_report_relative_v3(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > +{
> > + struct input_dev *dev = psmouse->dev;
> > + unsigned char *packet = psmouse->packet;
> > + int rel_x = 0, rel_y = 0;
> > +
> > + if (psmouse->pktcnt < psmouse->pktsize)
> > + return PSMOUSE_GOOD_DATA;
>
> This is a duplicate of elantech_process_byte and you skipped the
> elantech_packet_dump feature of elantech_process_byte. I think it would be
> better to let elantech_process_byte call this elantech_report_relative_v3
> just like all the other reportings.
> Is it required to also disable the elantech_packet_check_v3 ?
>
> Can you document the typical packet format for
> elantech_report_relative_v3 ? Something similar to elantech_report_trackpoint ?
>
>
> > +
> > + input_report_rel(dev, REL_WHEEL, -(signed char)packet[3]);
> > +
> > + rel_x = (int) packet[1] - (int) ((packet[0] << 4) & 0x100);
> > + rel_y = (int) ((packet[0] << 3) & 0x100) - (int) packet[2];
> > +
> > + input_report_key(dev, BTN_LEFT, packet[0] & 1);
> > + input_report_key(dev, BTN_RIGHT, (packet[0] >> 1) & 1);
> > + input_report_rel(dev, REL_X, rel_x);
> > + input_report_rel(dev, REL_Y, rel_y);
> > +
> > + input_sync(dev);
> > +
> > + return PSMOUSE_FULL_PACKET;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void elantech_input_sync_v4(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > {
> > struct input_dev *dev = psmouse->dev;
> > @@ -696,14 +720,14 @@ static int elantech_packet_check_v1(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> >
> > static int elantech_debounce_check_v2(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > {
> > - /*
> > - * When we encounter packet that matches this exactly, it means the
> > - * hardware is in debounce status. Just ignore the whole packet.
> > - */
> > - const u8 debounce_packet[] = { 0x84, 0xff, 0xff, 0x02, 0xff, 0xff };
> > - unsigned char *packet = psmouse->packet;
> > -
> > - return !memcmp(packet, debounce_packet, sizeof(debounce_packet));
> > + /*
> > + * When we encounter packet that matches this exactly, it means the
> > + * hardware is in debounce status. Just ignore the whole packet.
> > + */
> > + const u8 debounce_packet[] = { 0x84, 0xff, 0xff, 0x02, 0xff, 0xff };
> > + unsigned char *packet = psmouse->packet;
> > +
> > + return !memcmp(packet, debounce_packet, sizeof(debounce_packet));
> > }
>
> Confirmed, the lines of elantech_debounce_check_v2 do not start with tab
> but spaces, but preferably this will be part of a separate commit.
Yes please.
>
> >
> > static int elantech_packet_check_v2(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > @@ -995,6 +1019,29 @@ static int elantech_set_absolute_mode(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > return rc;
> > }
> >
> > +/* it's the work around mode for some touchpad which has FW bug, but dont' support IAP funciton */
>
> This line is too long, split it across multiple lines.
>
> > +static int elantech_set_special_mode(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > +{
> > + unsigned char param[3];
> > + int rc = 0;
>
> Knowing Dmitry, he would prefer to have error as name instead of rc.
>
> > +
> > + param[0] = 0xc8;
> > + param[1] = 0x64;
> > + param[2] = 0x50;
> > +
> > + if (elantech_ps2_command(psmouse, ¶m[0], PSMOUSE_CMD_SETRATE) ||
> > + elantech_ps2_command(psmouse, ¶m[1], PSMOUSE_CMD_SETRATE) ||
> > + elantech_ps2_command(psmouse, ¶m[2], PSMOUSE_CMD_SETRATE) ||
> > + elantech_ps2_command(psmouse, param, PSMOUSE_CMD_GETID)) {
> > + rc = -1;
> > + }
>
> Hm, these do look very similar to intellimouse_detect. Is that a coincidence ?
>
> > +
> > + psmouse->set_rate(psmouse, 0x64);
> > + psmouse->set_resolution(psmouse, 200);
>
> Why hardcode set_rate and set_resolution when they are already module
> parameters with the defaults exactly the ones selected here.
This "special" mode is simply the basic PS/2 mode, right? And the issue
is that this firmware version does not really support absolute mode, at
least not in the form that current driver supports?
If it is really basic PS/2 mode you can simply return "false" from
elantech_init() and we'll reset the mouse and try the basic protocols in
psmouse-base.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
