mbox series

[v2,0/5] input/touchscreen: imagis: add support for IST3032C

Message ID 20231003133440.4696-1-karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz (mailing list archive)
Headers show
Series input/touchscreen: imagis: add support for IST3032C | expand

Message

Karel Balej Oct. 3, 2023, 1:34 p.m. UTC
From: Karel Balej <karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

This patch series generalizes the Imagis touchscreen driver to support
other Imagis chips, namely IST3038B, which use a slightly different
protocol.

It also adds necessary information to the driver so that the IST3032C
touchscreen can be used with it. The motivation for this is the
samsung,coreprimevelte smartphone with which this series has been
tested. However, the support for this device is not yet in-tree, the
effort is happening at [1]. In particular, the driver for the regulator
needed by the touchscreen on this device has not been rewritten for
mainline yet.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230812-pxa1908-lkml-v5-0-a5d51937ee34@skole.hr/
---
Changes in v2:
- Do not rename the driver.
- Do not hardcode voltage required by the IST3032C.
- Use Markuss' series which generalizes the driver.
- Separate bindings into separate patch.
- v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230926173531.18715-1-balejk@matfyz.cz/
---

Karel Balej (2):
  dt-bindings: input/touchscreen: imagis: add compatible for IST3032C
  input/touchscreen: imagis: add support for IST3032C

Markuss Broks (3):
  input/touchscreen: imagis: Correct the maximum touch area value
  dt-bindings: input/touchscreen: Add compatible for IST3038B
  input/touchscreen: imagis: Add support for Imagis IST3038B

 .../input/touchscreen/imagis,ist3038c.yaml    |  2 +
 drivers/input/touchscreen/imagis.c            | 70 +++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

Comments

Karel Balej Oct. 3, 2023, 1:45 p.m. UTC | #1
Hello,

> From: Karel Balej <karelb@gimli.ms.mff.cuni.cz>

I am very sorry, I wanted to use a different email address for sending
than for commiting so that the message would also reach people whose
email providers have more strict requirements on sender authentication
(such as Google), but it seems that I have made a mistake and confused
git altogether.

I will fix it in a possible v3 after I receive some feedback or I will
resend it before it gets applied and I will make sure to properly test
the setup then.

My apologies,
K. B.