| Message ID | 20200423102431.2715-1-stephan@gerhold.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 7842087b0196d674ed877d768de8f2a34d7fdc53 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/2] Input: mms114 - add extra compatible for mms345l | expand |
Hi guys, > }, { > .compatible = "melfas,mms152", > .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, > + }, { > + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", > + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, > }, it's been some times I haven't been doing this, but is the order of the patches correct? shouldn't the binding be updated first? Andi
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:29:37PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi guys, > > > }, { > > .compatible = "melfas,mms152", > > .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, > > + }, { > > + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", > > + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, > > }, > > it's been some times I haven't been doing this, but is the order > of the patches correct? shouldn't the binding be updated first? > Yes. I had it correct in my original patch, but apparently swapped the order accidentally for this one. I will do it correct again next time :) Thanks, Stephan
Hi Stephan, On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:29:37PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > > }, { > > > .compatible = "melfas,mms152", > > > .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, > > > + }, { > > > + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", > > > + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, > > > }, > > > > it's been some times I haven't been doing this, but is the order > > of the patches correct? shouldn't the binding be updated first? > > > > Yes. I had it correct in my original patch, but apparently swapped the > order accidentally for this one. I will do it correct again next time :) then with that change: Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> Thanks, Andi
On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:22:43PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi Stephan, > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:29:37PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > }, { > > > > .compatible = "melfas,mms152", > > > > .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, > > > > + }, { > > > > + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", > > > > + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, > > > > }, > > > > > > it's been some times I haven't been doing this, but is the order > > > of the patches correct? shouldn't the binding be updated first? > > > > > > > Yes. I had it correct in my original patch, but apparently swapped the > > order accidentally for this one. I will do it correct again next time :) > > then with that change: > > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> > Hi Dmitry, I assume there is little reason to resend just to swap the order. (You could just apply them in reverse order since they do not depend on each other...) But if there is something else I should change just let me know. Thanks, Stephan
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 08:24:17PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 04:22:43PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > > Hi Stephan, > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 01:34:46PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 12:29:37PM +0300, Andi Shyti wrote: > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > }, { > > > > > .compatible = "melfas,mms152", > > > > > .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, > > > > > + }, { > > > > > + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", > > > > > + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, > > > > > }, > > > > > > > > it's been some times I haven't been doing this, but is the order > > > > of the patches correct? shouldn't the binding be updated first? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. I had it correct in my original patch, but apparently swapped the > > > order accidentally for this one. I will do it correct again next time :) > > > > then with that change: > > > > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi@etezian.org> > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > I assume there is little reason to resend just to swap the order. > (You could just apply them in reverse order since they do not depend > on each other...) > > But if there is something else I should change just let me know. No, that is it, I just applied the both. Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/mms114.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/mms114.c index 2ef1adaed9af..5bdf4ac1a303 100644 --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/mms114.c +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/mms114.c @@ -54,6 +54,7 @@ enum mms_type { TYPE_MMS114 = 114, TYPE_MMS152 = 152, + TYPE_MMS345L = 345, }; struct mms114_data { @@ -250,6 +251,15 @@ static int mms114_get_version(struct mms114_data *data) int error; switch (data->type) { + case TYPE_MMS345L: + error = __mms114_read_reg(data, MMS152_FW_REV, 3, buf); + if (error) + return error; + + dev_info(dev, "TSP FW Rev: bootloader 0x%x / core 0x%x / config 0x%x\n", + buf[0], buf[1], buf[2]); + break; + case TYPE_MMS152: error = __mms114_read_reg(data, MMS152_FW_REV, 3, buf); if (error) @@ -287,8 +297,8 @@ static int mms114_setup_regs(struct mms114_data *data) if (error < 0) return error; - /* MMS152 has no configuration or power on registers */ - if (data->type == TYPE_MMS152) + /* Only MMS114 has configuration and power on registers */ + if (data->type != TYPE_MMS114) return 0; error = mms114_set_active(data, true); @@ -597,6 +607,9 @@ static const struct of_device_id mms114_dt_match[] = { }, { .compatible = "melfas,mms152", .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS152, + }, { + .compatible = "melfas,mms345l", + .data = (void *)TYPE_MMS345L, }, { } };
MMS345L is another first generation touch screen from Melfas, which uses mostly the same registers as MMS152. However, there is some garbage printed during initialization. Apparently MMS345L does not have the MMS152_COMPAT_GROUP register that is read+printed during initialization. TSP FW Rev: bootloader 0x6 / core 0x26 / config 0x26, Compat group: \x06 On earlier kernel versions the compat group was actually printed as an ASCII control character, seems like it gets escaped now. But we probably shouldn't print something from a random register. Add a separate "melfas,mms345l" compatible that avoids reading from the MMS152_COMPAT_GROUP register. This might also help in case there is some other device-specific quirk in the future. Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net> --- Adding an extra compatible just for a log message that looks weird might be a bit exaggerated, I'm not sure. But so far I got the impression that it's better to add separate compatibles if devices behave slightly different (in case more differences are discovered later). Alternatively we could also: - Remove the "Compat group:" from the log message (I'm not sure how useful it is since it's just printed but nothing is done with it...) - Just accept that we might be reading from some invalid register on MMS345L (It doesn't seem to affect functionality at the moment...) I just thought we should discuss this before I upstream the patch that adds the touchscreen to the device tree of my board. --- drivers/input/touchscreen/mms114.c | 17 +++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)