Re: [PATCH] fix n900 dts file to work around 4.1 touchscreen regression on n900

[Felipe Balbi]

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:17:45PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:56:29PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Fri 2015-05-29 14:49:55, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 09:32:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Fix dts to match what the Linux kernel expects. This works around
> > > > touchscreen problems in 4.1 linux on Nokia n900.
> > > >     
> > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt
> > > > index 4b641c7..09089a6 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/tsc2005.txt
> > > > @@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ Example:
> > > >  		touchscreen-fuzz-x = <4>;
> > > >  		touchscreen-fuzz-y = <7>;
> > > >  		touchscreen-fuzz-pressure = <2>;
> > > > -		touchscreen-max-x = <4096>;
> > > > -		touchscreen-max-y = <4096>;
> > > > +		touchscreen-size-x = <4096>;
> > > > +		touchscreen-size-y = <4096>;
> > > 
> > > IMHO, the older binding needs to be supported as well. It's fine to
> > > update the DTS for the new binding, but even Documentation says
> > > touchscreen-max-[xy] and if the driver changed that, the driver should
> > > be fixed too. Besides, it seems like this has been in tree since
> > > v3.16:
> > 
> > Agreed. In parent email, I have list of two commits that should be
> > reverted.
> 
> So, if we sums things up. You introduce in some documentation example
> some property, that you never document, that you still use in one

it was Documented in DT bindings document for this particular driver.
What are you talking about ?

> single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now
> that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that

not Pali, Sebastian.

> actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all
> other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted?

We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed.

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature