On 11/4/19 12:55 AM, Adam Ford wrote: > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 3:48 PM Sven Van Asbroeck wrote: >> >> Dmitry / Marek, >> >> There have been two attempts to add ILI2117 touch controller support. >> I was about to add a third, but luckily I checked the mailing list >> before writing any code :) >> >> Adding this support would clearly be beneficial for the common good. >> What can we do to get this in motion again? >> >> Last time I checked, Marek posted a patch which added the 2117, but Dmitry >> objected, because the code became too unwieldy. Dmitry then posted a cleanup >> patch, which did not work for Marek. So everything came to a halt. >> See: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10836651/ >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-input/msg62670.html >> >> Dmitry, would you perhaps be willing to accept Marek's patch, and perform the >> cleanup later? >> >> Marek, would you perhaps be willing to invest some time to debug Dmitry's >> cleanup patch? >> >> On my end, I've reviewed Dmitry's patch and it looks mostly ok. I saw one >> difference with ILI210X which could explain Marek's results, but I can't be >> sure - because I could not locate the 210X's register layout on the web. >> >> In Dmitry's patch, we see: >> >> touch = ili210x_report_events(priv, touchdata); >> if (touch || chip->continue_polling(touchdata)) >> schedule_delayed_work(&priv->dwork, >> msecs_to_jiffies(priv->poll_period)); >> >> but this is not exactly equivalent to the original. Because in the original, >> the 210X's decision to kick off delayed work is completely independent of >> the value of touch. >> > > If anyone is interested, I posted a patch to add ili2117A. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10849877/ > > I am not sure if it's compatible with the non-A version. This patch could've gone in as-is, the rework was not necessary (and indeed, didn't work). I don't know why this patch wasn't applied in the end, maybe it was just missed.
