Re: [PATCH 00/15] atmel_mxt_ts - device tree, bootloader, etc

[Yufeng Shen]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/28/2014 03:23 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>
>> On 07/28/2014 02:20 PM, Yufeng Shen wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>> Where did you get the configuration file ? It is possible that we rely
>>> too much on mxt_start to turn on the T9.CTRL bit and have neglected
>>> its setting in the config file.
>>> If you can tell me where you get the config file I can do a check.
>>
>>
>> It was already flashed into the touchpad when I received the board. I
>> did try to track down the firmware/config files a few months ago, but
>> didn't manage to; I was told since they were already flashed so I didn't
>> need them. The board is Venice2.
>
>
> OK, I received the configuration and firmware file that's supposed to be in
> the touchpad.
>
> I can see that the config file I was given has the "83" byte in the T9
> configuration, and in fact /almost/ exactly matches the configuration I
> have. I don't know why my T9 configuration was wrong before, but I suspect
> it's not worth trying to track that down.
>
> Anyway, here's the diff between the two config files:
>
>> # diff -u mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml 224sl.raw
>> --- mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml      2014-07-25 19:41:45.000000000
>> +0000
>> +++ 224sl.raw   2014-07-28 23:25:49.000000000 +0000
>> @@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
>>  OBP_RAW V1
>>  82 01 10 AA 12 0C 16
>>  F5AF33
>> -000000
>> -0025 0000 0082 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>> +E21E65
>>  0026 0000 0008 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
>>  0007 0000 0004 20 10 32 00
>>  0008 0000 000A 1E 00 28 28 00 00 00 00 00 00
>
>
> It seems that the T25(?) entry is missing in the new/expected configuration
> file. I figured I'd try out the new/expected configuration file, so did:
>

T37 (0x25) is DEBUG_DIAGNOSTIC object which the host can read debugging info
from. It is not useful to have a initial config for it so usually CrOS
system would just
don't include configuration for this object.

Nick, I want to confirm with you that does T37 contribute to config
checksum computation ?

> # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --load 224sl.raw
> # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --save
> mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml
>
> At this point, mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml contains identical
> content to mxt-save-after-t9-83-write.xml (my previous backup). It looks
> like the new configuration isn't being loaded correctly, or perhaps
> configuration loading doesn't delete entries that are simply not in the new
> configuration file?
>

Yeah, I would guess since T37 is not in the config, so whatever in the NVRAM
stays the same and when you --save its original value gets dumped.

> I subsequently did the following in case --save is reading from the NVRAM
> rather than RAM:
>
> # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --backup
> # ./obp-utils/mxt-app -d i2c-dev:1-004b --save
> mxt-save-after-loading-224sl.raw.xml
>
> ... but that made no difference.
>
> I haven't yet tried upgrading or otherwise using the new firmware image. I'd
> like to make sure config load/save is fully working first, in case there's
> any common problem between the two.
--
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/