Re: [PATCH 5/5] Input: elants_i2c: Delay longer with reset asserted

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 05:38:28PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2022 at 11:20:06AM -0800, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > The elan touchscreen datasheet says that the reset GPIO only needs to
> > be asserted for 500us in order to reset the regulator. The problem is
> > that some boards need a level shifter between the signals on the GPIO
> > controller and the signals on the touchscreen. All of these extra
> > components on the line can slow the transition of the signals. On one
> > board, we measured the reset line and saw that it took almost 1.8ms to
> > go low. Even after we bumped up the "drive strength" of the signal
> > from the default 2mA to 8mA we still saw it take 421us for the signal
> > to go low.
> > 
> > In order to account for this we let's lengthen the amount of time that
> > we keep the reset asserted. Let's bump it up from 500us to 5000us.
> > That's still a relatively short amount of time and is much safer.
> > 
> > It should be noted that this fixes real problems. Case in point:
> > 1. The touchscreen power rail may be shared with another device (like
> >    an eDP panel). That means that at probe time power might already be
> >    on.
> > 2. In probe we grab the reset GPIO and assert it (make it low).
> > 3. We turn on power (a noop since it was already on).
> > 4. We wait 500us.
> > 5. We deassert the reset GPIO.
> > 
> > With the above case and only a 500us delay we saw only a partial reset
> > asserted, which is bad. Giving it 5ms is overkill but feels safer in
> > case someone else has a different level shifter setup.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Applied, thank you.

Unapplied ;) I guess we should follow kernel test robot's advise and
switch to using usleep_range().

-- 
Dmitry