Re: [PATCH 2/2] iio: exynos-adc: add experimental touchscreen support

[Jonathan Cameron]

On 20/07/14 14:49, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 18/07/14 20:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > This adds support for the touchscreen on Samsung s3c64xx.
> > The driver is completely untested but shows roughly how
> > it could be done, following the example of the at91 driver.
> Hi Arnd,
Cc'd linux-input and Dmitry.
> > Open questions include:
> >
> > - compared to the old plat-samsung/adc driver, there is
> >    no support for prioritizing ts over other clients, nor
> >    for oversampling. From my reading of the code, the
> >    priorities didn't actually have any effect at all, but
> >    the oversampling might be needed. Maybe the original
> >    authors have some insight.
> >
> > - I simply register the input device from the adc driver
> >    itself, as the at91 code does. The driver also supports
> >    sub-nodes, but I don't understand how they are meant
> >    to be used, so using those might be better.
> So, the alternative you are (I think) referring to is to use
> the buffered in kernel client interface.  That way a separate
> touch screen driver can use the output channels provided by IIO
> in much the same way you might use a regulator or similar.
> Note that whilst this is similar to the simple polled interface
> used for things like the iio_hwmon driver, the data flow is
> quite different (clearly the polled interfce would be
> inappropriate here).
>
> Whilst we've discussed it in the past for touch screen drivers
> like this, usually the hardware isn't generic enough to be
> of any real use if not being used as a touch screen.  As such
> it's often simpler to just have the support directly in the
> driver (as you've observed the at91 driver does this).
>
> Whilst the interface has been there a while, it's not really had
> all that much use.  The original target was the simpler case
> of 3D accelerometer where we have a generic iio to input
> bridge driver. Time constraints meant that I haven't yet actually
> formally submitted the input side of this. Whilst there are lots
> of other things that can use this interface, right now nothing
> actually does so.
>
> > - The new exynos_read_s3c64xx_ts() function is intentionally
> >    very similar to the existing exynos_read_raw() functions.
> >    It should probably be changed, either by merging the two
> >    into one, or by simplifying the exynos_read_s3c64xx_ts()
> >    function. This depends a bit on the answers to the questions
> >    above.
> I'd be tempted to not bother keeping them that similar.  It's
> not a generic IIO channel so simplify it where possible.
> > - We probably need to add support for platform_data as well,
> >    I've skipped this so far.
> >
> > - Is anybody able to debug this driver on real hardware?
> >    While it's possible that it actually works, it's more
> >    likely that I made a few subtle mistakes.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> Looks pretty good to me.  A few symantic bits and pieces and
> one bug spotted.  Short and sweet.
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/exynos-adc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/exynos-adc.txt
> > index e1b74828f413..4329bf3c3326 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/exynos-adc.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/exynos-adc.txt
> > @@ -41,6 +41,10 @@ Required properties:
> >                          and compatible ADC block)
> >   - vdd-supply        VDD input supply.
> >
> > +Optional properties:
> > +- has-touchscreen:    If present, indicates that a touchscreen is
> > +            connected an usable.
> > +
> >   Note: child nodes can be added for auto probing from device tree.
> >
> >   Example: adding device info in dtsi file
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> > index 5f95638513d2..cf1d9f3e2492 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/adc/exynos_adc.c
> > @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@
> >   #include <linux/regulator/consumer.h>
> >   #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> >   #include <linux/err.h>
> > +#include <linux/input.h>
> Might want to make the input side optional at compile time...
> I supose the existing parts are unlikely to be used much in headless
> devices, but you never know.  Maybe we just leave this until someone
> shouts they want to be able to avoid compiling it in.
> >   #include <linux/iio/iio.h>
> >   #include <linux/iio/machine.h>
> > @@ -103,6 +104,7 @@
> >
> >   /* Bit definitions common for ADC_V1 and ADC_V2 */
> >   #define ADC_CON_EN_START    (1u << 0)
> > +#define ADC_DATX_PRESSED    (1u << 15)
> >   #define ADC_DATX_MASK        0xFFF
> >
> >   #define EXYNOS_ADC_TIMEOUT    (msecs_to_jiffies(100))
> > @@ -110,16 +112,20 @@
> >   struct exynos_adc {
> >       struct exynos_adc_data    *data;
> >       struct device        *dev;
> > +    struct input_dev    *input;
> >       void __iomem        *regs;
> >       void __iomem        *enable_reg;
> >       struct clk        *clk;
> >       struct clk        *sclk;
> >       unsigned int        irq;
> > +    unsigned int        tsirq;
> >       struct regulator    *vdd;
> >
> >       struct completion    completion;
> >
> > +    bool            read_ts;
> >       u32            value;
> > +    u32            value2;
> As I state further down, I'd rather keep a little
> clear of the naming used in IIO for bits that aren't
> going through IIO (less confusing!). Maybe just
> have
>      u32 x, y;
> >       unsigned int            version;
> >   };
> >
> > @@ -390,12 +396,61 @@ static int exynos_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >       return ret;
> >   }
> >
> > +static int exynos_read_s3c64xx_ts(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > +                struct iio_chan_spec const *chan,
> > +                int *val,
> > +                int *val2,
> > +                long mask)
> > +{
> > +    struct exynos_adc *info = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> > +    unsigned long timeout;
> > +    int ret;
> > +
> > +    if (mask != IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW)
> > +        return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > +    mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> > +    info->read_ts = 1;
> > +
> > +    reinit_completion(&info->completion);
> > +
> > +    writel(ADC_S3C2410_TSC_PULL_UP_DISABLE | ADC_TSC_AUTOPST,
> > +           ADC_V1_TSC(info->regs));
> > +
> > +    /* Select the ts channel to be used and Trigger conversion */
> > +    info->data->start_conv(info, 0);
> 0 is a rather magic value.  A define perhaps?
> > +
> > +    timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout
> > +            (&info->completion, EXYNOS_ADC_TIMEOUT);
> > +    if (timeout == 0) {
> > +        dev_warn(&indio_dev->dev, "Conversion timed out! Resetting\n");
> > +        if (info->data->init_hw)
> > +            info->data->init_hw(info);
> > +        ret = -ETIMEDOUT;
> > +    } else {
> > +        *val = info->value;
> > +        *val2 = info->value2;
> This is definitely abuse as those two values are not intended for
> different values.  If you want to do this please use different naming
> and don't try to fiddle it into the IIO read raw framework.
> As you've suggested above, better to simplify this code and drop the
> bits cloned from the other handler.
> > +        ret = IIO_VAL_INT;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    info->read_ts = 0;
> > +    mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
> > +
> > +    return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >   {
> >       struct exynos_adc *info = (struct exynos_adc *)dev_id;
> >
> >       /* Read value */
> > -    info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) & ADC_DATX_MASK;
> > +    if (info->read_ts) {
> > +        info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) & ADC_DATX_MASK;
> > +        info->value2 = readl(ADC_V1_DATY(info->regs)) & ADC_DATX_MASK;
> ADC_DATY_MASK would be more obviously correct.
>
> > +        writel(ADC_TSC_WAIT4INT | ADC_S3C2443_TSC_UD_SEN, ADC_V1_TSC(info->regs));
> Perhaps the above is cryptic enough to warrant a comment?
> > +    } else {
> > +        info->value = readl(ADC_V1_DATX(info->regs)) & ADC_DATX_MASK;
> > +    }
> >
> >       /* clear irq */
> >       if (info->data->clear_irq)
> > @@ -406,6 +461,46 @@ static irqreturn_t exynos_adc_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >       return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >   }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Here we (ab)use a threaded interrupt handler to stay running
> > + * for as long as the touchscreen remains pressed, we report
> > + * a new event with the latest data and then sleep until the
> > + * next timer tick. This mirrors the behavior of the old
> > + * driver, with much less code.
> > + */
> > +static irqreturn_t exynos_ts_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> > +{
> > +    struct exynos_adc *info = dev_id;
> > +    struct iio_dev *dev = dev_get_drvdata(info->dev);
> > +    u32 x, y;
> > +    bool pressed;
> > +    int ret;
> > +
> > +    do {
> > +        ret =exynos_read_s3c64xx_ts(dev, NULL, &x, &y, IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW);
> = exynos
> > +        if (ret == -ETIMEDOUT)
> > +            break;
> > +
> > +        pressed = x & y & ADC_DATX_PRESSED;
> > +        if (!pressed)
> > +            break;
> > +
> > +        input_report_abs(info->input, ABS_X, x & ADC_DATX_MASK);
> > +        input_report_abs(info->input, ABS_Y, y & ADC_DATX_MASK);
> > +        input_report_key(info->input, BTN_TOUCH, 1);
> > +        input_sync(info->input);
> > +
> > +        msleep(1);
> > +    } while (1);
> > +
> > +    input_report_key(info->input, BTN_TOUCH, 0);
> > +    input_sync(info->input);
> > +
> > +    writel(0, ADC_V1_CLRINTPNDNUP(info->regs));
> > +
> > +    return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static int exynos_adc_reg_access(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> >                     unsigned reg, unsigned writeval,
> >                     unsigned *readval)
> > @@ -457,12 +552,57 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove_devices(struct device *dev, void *c)
> >       return 0;
> >   }
> >
> > +static int exynos_adc_ts_init(struct exynos_adc *info)
> > +{
> > +    int ret;
> > +
> > +    info->input = input_allocate_device();
> > +    if (!info->input)
> > +        return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +    info->input->evbit[0] = BIT_MASK(EV_KEY) | BIT_MASK(EV_ABS);
> > +    info->input->keybit[BIT_WORD(BTN_TOUCH)] = BIT_MASK(BTN_TOUCH);
> > +
> > +    input_set_abs_params(info->input, ABS_X, 0, 0x3FF, 0, 0);
> > +    input_set_abs_params(info->input, ABS_Y, 0, 0x3FF, 0, 0);
> > +
> > +    /* data from s3c2410_ts driver */
> > +    info->input->name = "S3C24xx TouchScreen";
> > +    info->input->id.bustype = BUS_HOST;
> > +    info->input->id.vendor = 0xDEAD;
> > +    info->input->id.product = 0xBEEF;
> > +    info->input->id.version = 0x0200;
> > +
> > +    ret = input_register_device(info->input);
> > +    if (ret) {
> > +        input_free_device(info->input);
> > +        goto err;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    if (info->tsirq > 0)
> > +        ret = request_threaded_irq(info->irq, NULL, exynos_ts_isr,
> > +                    0, "touchscreen", info);
> info->tsirq
> (that had me really confused for a moment ;)
> Also, perhaps a more specific name.  touchscreen_updown or similar as the
> main interrupt is also used during touchscreen operation.
> > +    if (ret < 0) {
> > +        dev_err(info->dev, "failed requesting touchsccreen irq, irq = %d\n",
> > +                            info->irq);
> > +        goto err_input;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +    return 0;
> > +
> > +err_input:
> > +    input_unregister_device(info->input);
> > +err:
> > +    return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> >   static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   {
> >       struct exynos_adc *info = NULL;
> >       struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> >       struct iio_dev *indio_dev = NULL;
> >       struct resource    *mem;
> > +    bool has_ts;
> >       int ret = -ENODEV;
> >       int irq;
> >
> > @@ -498,8 +638,14 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >           dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no irq resource?\n");
> >           return irq;
> >       }
> > -
> >       info->irq = irq;
> > +
> > +    irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 1);
> > +    if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > +        return irq;
> > +
> > +    info->tsirq = irq;
> > +
> >       info->dev = &pdev->dev;
> >
> >       init_completion(&info->completion);
> > @@ -565,6 +711,12 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       if (info->data->init_hw)
> >           info->data->init_hw(info);
> >
> > +    has_ts = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, "has-touchscreen");
> > +    if (has_ts)
> > +        ret = exynos_adc_ts_init(info);
> > +    if (ret)
> > +        goto err_iio;
> > +
> >       ret = of_platform_populate(np, exynos_adc_match, NULL, &indio_dev->dev);
> >       if (ret < 0) {
> >           dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed adding child nodes\n");
> > @@ -576,6 +728,11 @@ static int exynos_adc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   err_of_populate:
> >       device_for_each_child(&indio_dev->dev, NULL,
> >                   exynos_adc_remove_devices);
> > +    if (has_ts) {
> > +        input_unregister_device(info->input);
> > +        free_irq(info->tsirq, info);
> > +    }
> > +err_iio:
> >       iio_device_unregister(indio_dev);
> >   err_irq:
> >       free_irq(info->irq, info);
> > @@ -595,9 +752,12 @@ static int exynos_adc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       struct iio_dev *indio_dev = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> >       struct exynos_adc *info = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >
> > +    input_free_device(info->input);
> >       device_for_each_child(&indio_dev->dev, NULL,
> >                   exynos_adc_remove_devices);
> >       iio_device_unregister(indio_dev);
> > +    if (info->tsirq > 0)
> > +        free_irq(info->tsirq, info);
> >       free_irq(info->irq, info);
> >       if (info->data->exit_hw)
> >           info->data->exit_hw(info);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/