diff mbox series

[v1,4/6] Input: mt6779-keypad - support double keys matrix

Message ID 20220720-mt8183-keypad-v1-4-ef9fc29dbff4@baylibre.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Input: mt6779-keypad - double keys support | expand

Commit Message

Mattijs Korpershoek July 20, 2022, 2:48 p.m. UTC 
MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
- single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
- double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys

Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
of pins required for physical keys.

Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.

Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
device tree property.

Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>

Comments

Matthias Brugger July 20, 2022, 2:53 p.m. UTC | #1 
On 20/07/2022 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek wrote:
> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys
> 
> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
> of pins required for physical keys.
> 
> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.
> 
> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
> device tree property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>

Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>

> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK	GENMASK(13, 0)
>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS	256
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL		0x0020
> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE	BIT(0)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL	GENMASK(15, 10)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW	GENMASK(9, 4)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c)	GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad {
>   	struct clk *clk;
>   	u32 n_rows;
>   	u32 n_cols;
> +	bool double_keys;
>   	DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
>   };
>   
> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
> -		row = key / 9;
> -		col = key % 9;
> +		if (keypad->double_keys) {
> +			row = key / 13;
> +			col = (key % 13) / 2;
> +		} else {
> +			row = key / 9;
> +			col = key % 9;
> +		}
>   
>   		scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
>   		/* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   
>   	wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
>   
> +	keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
> +
>   	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
>   		keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
>   
> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
>   		     (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
>   
> +	if (keypad->double_keys)
> +		regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
> +				   MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
> +
>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
>   			   MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,
>
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno July 21, 2022, 8:34 a.m. UTC | #2 
Il 20/07/22 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys
> 
> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
> of pins required for physical keys.
> 
> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.
> 
> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
> device tree property.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>
> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK	GENMASK(13, 0)
>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS	256
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL		0x0020
> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE	BIT(0)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL	GENMASK(15, 10)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW	GENMASK(9, 4)
>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c)	GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad {
>   	struct clk *clk;
>   	u32 n_rows;
>   	u32 n_cols;
> +	bool double_keys;
>   	DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
>   };
>   
> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>   			continue;
>   
>   		key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
> -		row = key / 9;
> -		col = key % 9;
> +		if (keypad->double_keys) {
> +			row = key / 13;
> +			col = (key % 13) / 2;
> +		} else {
> +			row = key / 9;
> +			col = key % 9;
> +		}

I don't fully like this if branch permanently evaluating true or false, as no
runtime can actually change this result...

In practice, it's fine, but I was wondering if anyone would disagree with the
following proposal...

struct mt6779_keypad {
	.......
	void (*calc_row_col)(unsigned int *row, unsigned int *col);
};

In mt6779_keypad_irq_handler:

	key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
	keypad->calc_row_col(&row, &col);

and below...

>   
>   		scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
>   		/* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   
>   	wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
>   
> +	keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
> +
>   	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
>   		keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
>   
> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>   	regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
>   		     (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
>   
> +	if (keypad->double_keys)

		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_double_kp;

> +		regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
> +				   MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
> +

	} else {
		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_single_kp;
	}

>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
>   			   MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,

what do you think?

Cheers,
Angelo
Mattijs Korpershoek July 21, 2022, 2:51 p.m. UTC | #3 
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote:

> Il 20/07/22 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
>> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
>> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
>> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys
>> 
>> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
>> of pins required for physical keys.
>> 
>> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.
>> 
>> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
>> device tree property.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
>> 
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK	GENMASK(13, 0)
>>   #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS	256
>>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL		0x0020
>> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE	BIT(0)
>>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL	GENMASK(15, 10)
>>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW	GENMASK(9, 4)
>>   #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c)	GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
>> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad {
>>   	struct clk *clk;
>>   	u32 n_rows;
>>   	u32 n_cols;
>> +	bool double_keys;
>>   	DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
>>   };
>>   
>> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>   			continue;
>>   
>>   		key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
>> -		row = key / 9;
>> -		col = key % 9;
>> +		if (keypad->double_keys) {
>> +			row = key / 13;
>> +			col = (key % 13) / 2;
>> +		} else {
>> +			row = key / 9;
>> +			col = key % 9;
>> +		}
>
> I don't fully like this if branch permanently evaluating true or false, as no
> runtime can actually change this result...
>
> In practice, it's fine, but I was wondering if anyone would disagree with the
> following proposal...
>
> struct mt6779_keypad {
> 	.......
> 	void (*calc_row_col)(unsigned int *row, unsigned int *col);
> };
>
> In mt6779_keypad_irq_handler:
>
> 	key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
> 	keypad->calc_row_col(&row, &col);
>
> and below...
>
>>   
>>   		scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
>>   		/* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
>> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   
>>   	wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
>>   
>> +	keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
>> +
>>   	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
>>   		keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
>>   
>> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
>>   		     (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
>>   
>> +	if (keypad->double_keys)
>
> 		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_double_kp;
>
>> +		regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
>> +				   MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
>> +
>
> 	} else {
> 		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_single_kp;
> 	}
>
>>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
>>   			   MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
>>   	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,
>
> what do you think?

Hi Angelo,

Thank you for your detailed suggestion. I like it and since I have to
resend a v2 anyways, I will consider implementing it.
On the other hand, I'm a little reluctant because it means that I'll
have to remove Matthias's reviewed-by :(

>
> Cheers,
> Angelo
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno July 21, 2022, 2:55 p.m. UTC | #4 
Il 21/07/22 16:51, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote:
> 
>> Il 20/07/22 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
>>> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events:
>>> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key
>>> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys
>>>
>>> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number
>>> of pins required for physical keys.
>>>
>>> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register.
>>>
>>> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys
>>> device tree property.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>>> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
>>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK	GENMASK(13, 0)
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS	256
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_SEL		0x0020
>>> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE	BIT(0)
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL	GENMASK(15, 10)
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW	GENMASK(9, 4)
>>>    #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c)	GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
>>> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad {
>>>    	struct clk *clk;
>>>    	u32 n_rows;
>>>    	u32 n_cols;
>>> +	bool double_keys;
>>>    	DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
>>>    };
>>>    
>>> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
>>>    			continue;
>>>    
>>>    		key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
>>> -		row = key / 9;
>>> -		col = key % 9;
>>> +		if (keypad->double_keys) {
>>> +			row = key / 13;
>>> +			col = (key % 13) / 2;
>>> +		} else {
>>> +			row = key / 9;
>>> +			col = key % 9;
>>> +		}
>>
>> I don't fully like this if branch permanently evaluating true or false, as no
>> runtime can actually change this result...
>>
>> In practice, it's fine, but I was wondering if anyone would disagree with the
>> following proposal...
>>
>> struct mt6779_keypad {
>> 	.......
>> 	void (*calc_row_col)(unsigned int *row, unsigned int *col);
>> };
>>
>> In mt6779_keypad_irq_handler:
>>
>> 	key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
>> 	keypad->calc_row_col(&row, &col);
>>
>> and below...
>>
>>>    
>>>    		scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
>>>    		/* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
>>> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    
>>>    	wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
>>>    
>>> +	keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
>>> +
>>>    	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
>>>    		keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
>>>    
>>> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
>>>    		     (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
>>>    
>>> +	if (keypad->double_keys)
>>
>> 		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_double_kp;
>>
>>> +		regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
>>> +				   MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
>>> +
>>
>> 	} else {
>> 		keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_single_kp;
>> 	}
>>
>>>    	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
>>>    			   MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
>>>    	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,
>>
>> what do you think?
> 
> Hi Angelo,
> 
> Thank you for your detailed suggestion. I like it and since I have to
> resend a v2 anyways, I will consider implementing it.
> On the other hand, I'm a little reluctant because it means that I'll
> have to remove Matthias's reviewed-by :(
> 

Yes, you will have to. In that case:

Matthias, any considerations about this idea? :)))

>>
>> Cheers,
>> Angelo
Mattijs Korpershoek July 26, 2022, 9:52 a.m. UTC | #5 
On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 16:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote:
[...]

> Il 21/07/22 16:51, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto:
>> 
>> Hi Angelo,
>> 
>> Thank you for your detailed suggestion. I like it and since I have to
>> resend a v2 anyways, I will consider implementing it.
>> On the other hand, I'm a little reluctant because it means that I'll
>> have to remove Matthias's reviewed-by :(
>> 
>
> Yes, you will have to. In that case:
>
> Matthias, any considerations about this idea? :)))

Since the binding document changed, I have to rework this patch anyways.
So I will drop Matthias's reviewed-by in v2.

>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Angelo
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644
--- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
+++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c
@@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ 
 #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK	GENMASK(13, 0)
 #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS	256
 #define MTK_KPD_SEL		0x0020
+#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE	BIT(0)
 #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL	GENMASK(15, 10)
 #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW	GENMASK(9, 4)
 #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c)	GENMASK((c) + 9, 10)
@@ -31,6 +32,7 @@  struct mt6779_keypad {
 	struct clk *clk;
 	u32 n_rows;
 	u32 n_cols;
+	bool double_keys;
 	DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS);
 };
 
@@ -67,8 +69,13 @@  static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
 			continue;
 
 		key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32;
-		row = key / 9;
-		col = key % 9;
+		if (keypad->double_keys) {
+			row = key / 13;
+			col = (key % 13) / 2;
+		} else {
+			row = key / 9;
+			col = key % 9;
+		}
 
 		scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift);
 		/* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */
@@ -150,6 +157,8 @@  static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 
 	wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source");
 
+	keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys");
+
 	dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n",
 		keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce);
 
@@ -166,6 +175,10 @@  static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE,
 		     (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK);
 
+	if (keypad->double_keys)
+		regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL,
+				   MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE);
+
 	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW,
 			   MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows));
 	regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL,