Re: [PATCH v3] input: keyboard: snvs_pwrkey: Send key events for i.MX6 S, DL and Q

[robin]

On 2019-11-20 10:27, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Hi Robin,
>
> On 19-09-16 16:37, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:45:37AM +0000, Robin Gong wrote:
> > > On 2019/9/13 15:31 robin <robin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:>
> > > > Hi Dmitry,
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-09-12 22:13, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > > Hi Robin,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 06:23:29AM +0000, Robin van der Gracht wrote:
> > > > >> The first generation i.MX6 processors does not send an interrupt when
> > > > >> the power key is pressed. It sends a power down request interrupt if
> > > > >> the key is released before a hard shutdown (5 second press). This
> > > > >> should allow software to bring down the SoC safely.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> For this driver to work as a regular power key with the older SoCs,
> > > > >> we need to send a keypress AND release when we get the power down
> > > > >> request irq.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Robin van der Gracht <robin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >> ---
> > > > >> @@ -67,13 +83,17 @@ static irqreturn_t imx_snvs_pwrkey_interrupt(int
> > > > >> irq, void *dev_id)  {
> > > > >>  	struct platform_device *pdev = dev_id;
> > > > >>  	struct pwrkey_drv_data *pdata = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > > > >> +	unsigned long expire = jiffies;
> > > > >>  	u32 lp_status;
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  	pm_wakeup_event(pdata->input->dev.parent, 0);
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  	regmap_read(pdata->snvs, SNVS_LPSR_REG, &lp_status);
> > > > >> -	if (lp_status & SNVS_LPSR_SPO)
> > > > >> -		mod_timer(&pdata->check_timer, jiffies +
> > > > >> msecs_to_jiffies(DEBOUNCE_TIME));
> > > > >> +	if (lp_status & SNVS_LPSR_SPO) {
> > > > >> +		if (pdata->minor_rev > 0)
> > > > >> +			expire = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(DEBOUNCE_TIME);
> > > > >> +		mod_timer(&pdata->check_timer, expire);
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do we even need to fire the timer in case of the first generation
> > > > > hardware? Just send press and release events directly from the ISR.
> > > That timer looks like a software debounce to prevent unexpected and
> > > meaningless interrupt/event caused by quick press/release.
> >
> > Right, but in case of the first generation hardware we schedule the
> > timer immediately (expire == 0) and do not check state of the hardware
> > in the timer handler, but rather simply emit down/up events, so we do
> > not really get any benefit from the timer (again, I am talking about
> > first generation hardware only).
>
> Did you prepared a v4? Just ask to avoid a duplicated work :)

No I haven't. Not sure what the public wants. Use timer, don't use 
timer..

v3 has had long term testing though ;)

Regards,
Robin van der Gracht