On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 07:53:57AM +0100, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> From: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> eKTF3624 touchscreen firmware uses two variants of the reply opcodes for
> reporting touch events: one is 0x63 (used by older firmware) and other is
> 0x66 (used by newer firmware). The 0x66 variant is equal to 0x63 of
> eKTH3500, while 0x63 needs small adjustment of the touch pressure value.
>
> Nexus 7 tablet device has eKTF3624 touchscreen and it uses 0x66 opcode for
> reporting touch events, let's support it now. Other devices, eg. ASUS TF300T,
> use 0x63.
>
> Note: CMD_HEADER_REK is used for replying to calibration requests, it has
> the same 0x66 opcode number which eKTF3624 uses for reporting touches.
> The calibration replies are handled separately from the the rest of the
> commands in the driver by entering into ELAN_WAIT_RECALIBRATION state
> and thus this change shouldn't change the old behavior.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c
> index c24d8cdc4251..1cbda6f20d07 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/elants_i2c.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,15 @@
> #define QUEUE_HEADER_NORMAL 0X63
> #define QUEUE_HEADER_WAIT 0x64
>
> +/*
> + * Depending on firmware version, eKTF3624 touchscreens may utilize one of
> + * these opcodes for the touch events: 0x63 and 0x66. The 0x63 is used by
> + * older firmware version and differs from 0x66 such that touch pressure
> + * value needs to be adjusted. The 0x66 opcode of newer firmware is equal
> + * to 0x63 of eKTH3500.
> + */
> +#define QUEUE_HEADER_NORMAL2 0x66
> +
> /* Command header definition */
> #define CMD_HEADER_WRITE 0x54
> #define CMD_HEADER_READ 0x53
> @@ -1052,7 +1061,6 @@ static irqreturn_t elants_i2c_irq(int irq, void *_dev)
> switch (ts->buf[FW_HDR_TYPE]) {
> case CMD_HEADER_HELLO:
> case CMD_HEADER_RESP:
> - case CMD_HEADER_REK:
> break;
>
> case QUEUE_HEADER_WAIT:
> @@ -1072,6 +1080,7 @@ static irqreturn_t elants_i2c_irq(int irq, void *_dev)
> break;
>
> case QUEUE_HEADER_NORMAL:
> + case QUEUE_HEADER_NORMAL2:
I think here I would also prefer that we only accepted this for the
devices where we expect to see such packets:
case CMD_HEADER_REK:
/* comment from above why this is done ... */
if (ts->chip_id != EKTF3624)
break;
fallthrough;
case QUEUE_HEADER_NORMAL2:
...
Given this comments I wonder if it would not make sense to combine the 3
patches into one adding support for EKTF3624...
> report_count = ts->buf[FW_HDR_COUNT];
> if (report_count == 0 || report_count > 3) {
> dev_err(&client->dev,
> --
> 2.20.1
>
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
