Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] Input: pixcir_i2c_ts: Use Type-B Multi-Touch protocol
From: Henrik Rydberg <hidden>
Date: 2014-05-19 07:19:09
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
Hi Roger, Thanks for the patch series. I think the patch looks great in general. Please see some minor comments below. On 05/06/2014 01:06 PM, Roger Quadros wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Switch to using the Type-B Multi-Touch protocol. Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros <redacted> --- drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c | 125 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 94 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c index 8a7da61..1b6e4e5 100644 --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/pixcir_i2c_ts.c@@ -23,9 +23,12 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/i2c.h> #include <linux/input.h> +#include <linux/input/mt.h> #include <linux/input/pixcir_ts.h> #include <linux/gpio.h> +#define PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS 2 + struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data { struct i2c_client *client; struct input_dev *input;@@ -33,12 +36,25 @@ struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data { bool running; }; -static void pixcir_ts_poscheck(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *data) +struct pixcir_touch { + int x; + int y; +}; + +struct pixcir_report_data { + int num_touches; + struct pixcir_touch touches[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS]; +}; + +static void pixcir_ts_parse(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata, + struct pixcir_report_data *report) { - struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata = data; u8 rdbuf[10], wrbuf[1] = { 0 }; + u8 *bufptr; u8 touch; - int ret; + int ret, i; + + memset(report, 0, sizeof(struct pixcir_report_data)); ret = i2c_master_send(tsdata->client, wrbuf, sizeof(wrbuf)); if (ret != sizeof(wrbuf)) {@@ -56,45 +72,85 @@ static void pixcir_ts_poscheck(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *data) return; } - touch = rdbuf[0]; - if (touch) { - u16 posx1 = (rdbuf[3] << 8) | rdbuf[2]; - u16 posy1 = (rdbuf[5] << 8) | rdbuf[4]; - u16 posx2 = (rdbuf[7] << 8) | rdbuf[6]; - u16 posy2 = (rdbuf[9] << 8) | rdbuf[8]; - - input_report_key(tsdata->input, BTN_TOUCH, 1); - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_X, posx1); - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_Y, posy1); - - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, posx1); - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, posy1); - input_mt_sync(tsdata->input); - - if (touch == 2) { - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, - ABS_MT_POSITION_X, posx2); - input_report_abs(tsdata->input, - ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, posy2); - input_mt_sync(tsdata->input); - } - } else { - input_report_key(tsdata->input, BTN_TOUCH, 0); + touch = rdbuf[0] & 0x7; + if (touch > PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS) + touch = PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS; + + report->num_touches = touch; + bufptr = &rdbuf[2]; + + for (i = 0; i < touch; i++) { + report->touches[i].x = (bufptr[1] << 8) | bufptr[0]; + report->touches[i].y = (bufptr[3] << 8) | bufptr[2]; + + bufptr = &bufptr[4]; } +}
In many places, the '&ptr[index]' form makes a lot of sense, but here, it would have been clearer to use 'bufptr += 4'.
+
+static void pixcir_ts_report(struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *ts,
+ struct pixcir_report_data *report)
+{
+ struct input_mt_pos pos[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS];
+ int slots[PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS];
+ struct pixcir_touch *touch;
+ int n, i, slot;
+ struct device *dev = &ts->client->dev;
- input_sync(tsdata->input);
+ n = report->num_touches;
+ if (n > PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS)
+ n = PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+ touch = &report->touches[i];
+ pos[i].x = touch->x;
+ pos[i].y = touch->y;
+ }
+
+ input_mt_assign_slots(ts->input, slots, pos, n);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
+ touch = &report->touches[i];
+ slot = slots[i];
+
+ input_mt_slot(ts->input, slot);
+ input_mt_report_slot_state(ts->input,
+ MT_TOOL_FINGER, true);
+
+ input_event(ts->input, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, touch->x);
+ input_event(ts->input, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, touch->y);
+
+ dev_dbg(dev, "%d: slot %d, x %d, y %d\n",
+ i, slot, touch->x, touch->y);
+ }
+
+ input_mt_sync_frame(ts->input);
+ input_sync(ts->input);
}
static irqreturn_t pixcir_ts_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
{
struct pixcir_i2c_ts_data *tsdata = dev_id;
const struct pixcir_ts_platform_data *pdata = tsdata->chip;
+ struct pixcir_report_data report;
while (tsdata->running) {
- pixcir_ts_poscheck(tsdata);
-
- if (gpio_get_value(pdata->gpio_attb))
+ /* parse packet */
+ pixcir_ts_parse(tsdata, &report);
+
+ /* report it */
+ pixcir_ts_report(tsdata, &report);
+
+ if (gpio_get_value(pdata->gpio_attb)) {
+ if (report.num_touches) {
+ /*
+ * Last report with no finger up?
+ * Do it now then.
+ */
+ input_mt_sync_frame(tsdata->input);
+ input_sync(tsdata->input);I think this construct is alright for this particular patch. If anything, it points at a need for a better model of interrupted contacts in the core.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ } break; + } msleep(20); }@@ -333,6 +389,13 @@ static int pixcir_i2c_ts_probe(struct i2c_client *client, input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, 0, pdata->x_max, 0, 0); input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, 0, pdata->y_max, 0, 0); + error = input_mt_init_slots(input, PIXCIR_MAX_SLOTS, + INPUT_MT_DIRECT | INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED); + if (error) { + dev_err(dev, "Error initializing Multi-Touch slots\n"); + return error; + } + input_set_drvdata(input, tsdata); error = devm_gpio_request_one(dev, pdata->gpio_attb,
Reviewed-by: Henrik Rydberg [off-list ref]
Thanks,
Henrik