| Message ID | 20220228233017.2270599-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | e941dc13fd3717122207d74539ab95da07ef797f |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3] Input: zinitix - Do not report shadow fingers | expand |
Hi Linus, On Tue, Mar 01, 2022 at 12:30:17AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > +static void zinitix_report_fingers(struct bt541_ts_data *bt541, struct touch_event *te) > { > - input_mt_slot(bt541->input_dev, slot); > - input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); > - touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, > - le16_to_cpu(p->x), le16_to_cpu(p->y), true); > - input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); > + struct point_coord *p; > + u16 x, y; > + unsigned long fmask; > + int i; > + > + /* > + * If the corresponding finger is not active, do not report > + * what is happening on it. > + */ > + fmask = te->finger_mask; > + for_each_set_bit(i, &fmask, MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM) { > + p = &te->point_coord[i]; > + > + /* Skip nonexisting fingers */ > + if (!(p->sub_status & SUB_BIT_EXIST)) > + continue; > + > + x = le16_to_cpu(p->x); > + y = le16_to_cpu(p->y); > + > + input_mt_slot(bt541->input_dev, i); > + > + if (p->sub_status & BIT_DOWN) { > + /* Finger down */ > + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); > + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); > + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); > + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d down (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); > + } else if (p->sub_status & BIT_UP) { > + /* Release finger */ > + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, false); > + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); > + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, 0); > + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d up (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); I think reporting releases should be a priority, or at least we should not be skipping it if for some reason both up and down bits are set. Also I believe we should be using SUB_BIT_* defines here (even though they are the same). > + } else if (p->sub_status & BIT_MOVE) { > + /* Finger moves while pressed down */ > + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); > + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); > + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); > + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d move (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); > + } else { > + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "unknown finger event\n"); > + } > + } > } > > static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) > @@ -335,7 +373,6 @@ static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) > struct i2c_client *client = bt541->client; > struct touch_event touch_event; > int error; > - int i; > > memset(&touch_event, 0, sizeof(struct touch_event)); > > @@ -346,10 +383,7 @@ static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) > goto out; > } > > - for (i = 0; i < MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM; i++) > - if (touch_event.point_coord[i].sub_status & SUB_BIT_EXIST) > - zinitix_report_finger(bt541, i, > - &touch_event.point_coord[i]); > + zinitix_report_fingers(bt541, &touch_event); I actually liked that we iterated over individual contacts here. I took the liberty to rearrange your patch a bit, could you please tell me if the version below looks OK to you? Thanks!
Hi Dmitry, On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:15 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > I actually liked that we iterated over individual contacts here. I took > the liberty to rearrange your patch a bit, could you please tell me if > the version below looks OK to you? Looks good and works good, gave it a spin on the hardware to make sure! Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Yours, Linus Walleij
On Sun, Mar 06, 2022 at 01:32:57AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > On Sat, Mar 5, 2022 at 3:15 AM Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I actually liked that we iterated over individual contacts here. I took > > the liberty to rearrange your patch a bit, could you please tell me if > > the version below looks OK to you? > > Looks good and works good, gave it a spin on the hardware to make > sure! > Tested-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Awesome, thank you.
diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c index 129ebc810de8..49794a545c64 100644 --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ struct point_coord { struct touch_event { __le16 status; - u8 finger_cnt; + u8 finger_mask; u8 time_stamp; struct point_coord point_coord[MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM]; }; @@ -319,14 +319,52 @@ static int zinitix_send_power_on_sequence(struct bt541_ts_data *bt541) return 0; } -static void zinitix_report_finger(struct bt541_ts_data *bt541, int slot, - const struct point_coord *p) +static void zinitix_report_fingers(struct bt541_ts_data *bt541, struct touch_event *te) { - input_mt_slot(bt541->input_dev, slot); - input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); - touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, - le16_to_cpu(p->x), le16_to_cpu(p->y), true); - input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); + struct point_coord *p; + u16 x, y; + unsigned long fmask; + int i; + + /* + * If the corresponding finger is not active, do not report + * what is happening on it. + */ + fmask = te->finger_mask; + for_each_set_bit(i, &fmask, MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM) { + p = &te->point_coord[i]; + + /* Skip nonexisting fingers */ + if (!(p->sub_status & SUB_BIT_EXIST)) + continue; + + x = le16_to_cpu(p->x); + y = le16_to_cpu(p->y); + + input_mt_slot(bt541->input_dev, i); + + if (p->sub_status & BIT_DOWN) { + /* Finger down */ + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d down (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); + } else if (p->sub_status & BIT_UP) { + /* Release finger */ + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, false); + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, 0); + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d up (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); + } else if (p->sub_status & BIT_MOVE) { + /* Finger moves while pressed down */ + input_mt_report_slot_state(bt541->input_dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER, true); + touchscreen_report_pos(bt541->input_dev, &bt541->prop, x, y, true); + input_report_abs(bt541->input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, p->width); + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "finger %d move (%u, %u)\n", i, x, y); + } else { + dev_dbg(&bt541->client->dev, "unknown finger event\n"); + } + } } static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) @@ -335,7 +373,6 @@ static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) struct i2c_client *client = bt541->client; struct touch_event touch_event; int error; - int i; memset(&touch_event, 0, sizeof(struct touch_event)); @@ -346,10 +383,7 @@ static irqreturn_t zinitix_ts_irq_handler(int irq, void *bt541_handler) goto out; } - for (i = 0; i < MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM; i++) - if (touch_event.point_coord[i].sub_status & SUB_BIT_EXIST) - zinitix_report_finger(bt541, i, - &touch_event.point_coord[i]); + zinitix_report_fingers(bt541, &touch_event); input_mt_sync_frame(bt541->input_dev); input_sync(bt541->input_dev);
I observed the following problem with the BT404 touch pad running the Phosh UI: When e.g. typing on the virtual keyboard pressing "g" would produce "ggg". After some analysis it turns out the firmware reports that three fingers hit that coordinate at the same time, finger 0, 2 and 4 (of the five available 0,1,2,3,4). DOWN Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 0 down (246, 395) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 1 up (0, 0) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 2 down (246, 395) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 3 up (0, 0) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 4 down (246, 395) UP Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 0 up (246, 395) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 2 up (246, 395) Zinitix-TS 3-0020: finger 4 up (246, 395) This is one touch and release: i.e. this is all reported on touch (down) and release. There is a field in the struct touch_event called finger_cnt which is actually a bitmask of the fingers active in the event. Rename this field finger_mask as this matches the use contents better, then use for_each_set_bit() to iterate over just the fingers that are actally active. Factor out a finger reporting function zinitix_report_fingers() to handle all fingers. Also be more careful in reporting finger down/up: we were reporting every event with input_mt_report_slot_state(..., true); but this should only be reported on finger down or move, not on finger up, so also add code to check p->sub_status to see what is happening and report correctly. After this my Zinitix BT404 touchscreen report fingers flawlessly. The vendor drive I have notably does not use the "finger_cnt" and contains obviously incorrect code like this: if (touch_dev->touch_info.finger_cnt > MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM) touch_dev->touch_info.finger_cnt = MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM; As MAX_SUPPORTED_FINGER_NUM is an ordinal and the field is a bitmask this seems quite confused. Cc: Michael Srba <Michael.Srba@seznam.cz> Cc: Nikita Travkin <nikita@trvn.ru> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> --- ChangeLog v2->v3: - Fix a !() parenthesing issue reported by Dan Carpenter and the kernel test robot. Incorporated as a review comment as the patch is not yet upstream. ChangeLog v1->v2: - Rewrite to use the mask of active fingers after Dmitry's observation that there is this field in the struct touch_event that is unused (also in the vendor driver). --- drivers/input/touchscreen/zinitix.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)