Hi Philipp,
I had a fast look to your driver and I have few comments.
> .../bindings/input/touchscreen/ili251x.txt | 35 ++
> drivers/input/touchscreen/Kconfig | 12 +
> drivers/input/touchscreen/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/input/touchscreen/ili251x.c | 350 ++++++++++++++++++
> 4 files changed, 398 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/touchscreen/ili251x.txt
> create mode 100644 drivers/input/touchscreen/ili251x.c
Please split the patch, the bindig should be on a separate patch
and must come before the driver.
> +#define MAX_FINGERS 10
> +#define REG_TOUCHDATA 0x10
> +#define TOUCHDATA_FINGERS 6
> +#define REG_TOUCHDATA2 0x14
> +#define TOUCHDATA2_FINGERS 4
> +#define REG_PANEL_INFO 0x20
> +#define REG_FIRMWARE_VERSION 0x40
> +#define REG_PROTO_VERSION 0x42
> +#define REG_CALIBRATE 0xcc
Can you please group and sort these definitions by type? REGs
with REGs and others together?
Please start the defines names with a unique identifier,
ILI251X_REG_* instead of just REG_*
> +struct finger {
> + u8 x_high:6;
> + u8 dummy:1;
> + u8 status:1;
> + u8 x_low;
> + u8 y_high;
> + u8 y_low;
> + u8 pressure;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct touchdata {
> + u8 status;
> + struct finger fingers[MAX_FINGERS];
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct panel_info {
> + u8 x_low;
> + u8 x_high;
> + u8 y_low;
> + u8 y_high;
> + u8 xchannel_num;
> + u8 ychannel_num;
> + u8 max_fingers;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct firmware_version {
> + u8 id;
> + u8 major;
> + u8 minor;
> +} __packed;
> +
> +struct protocol_version {
> + u8 major;
> + u8 minor;
> +} __packed;
panel_info, firmware_version and protocol_version are used very
little in the driver (just in probe). Is it really necessary to
keep a definition?
Is there a way to get rid of them?
> +struct ili251x_data {
> + struct i2c_client *client;
> + struct input_dev *input;
> + unsigned int max_fingers;
> + bool use_pressure;
> + struct gpio_desc *reset_gpio;
> +};
Please start also the strct definitions with the unique
identifier ili251x_* like you did with ili251x_data.
> +
> +static int ili251x_read_reg(struct i2c_client *client, u8 reg, void *buf,
> + size_t len)
> +{
> + struct i2c_msg msg[2] = {
> + {
> + .addr = client->addr,
> + .flags = 0,
> + .len = 1,
> + .buf = ®,
> + },
> + {
> + .addr = client->addr,
> + .flags = I2C_M_RD,
> + .len = len,
> + .buf = buf,
> + }
> + };
> +
> + if (i2c_transfer(client->adapter, msg, 2) != 2) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "i2c transfer failed\n");
> + return -EIO;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
I do not see the need for a ili251x_read_reg function. You are
not reading more than 240 bytes per time, am I right?
In this case I would use the smbus functions (at least whenever
possible in case I miscalculated the 240b), this is ju a
duplicated code.
> +static void ili251x_report_events(struct ili251x_data *data,
> + const struct touchdata *touchdata)
> +{
> + struct input_dev *input = data->input;
> + unsigned int i;
> + bool touch;
> + unsigned int x, y;
> + const struct finger *finger;
> + unsigned int reported_fingers = 0;
> +
> + /* the touch chip does not count the real fingers but switches between
> + * 0, 6 and 10 reported fingers *
> + *
> + * FIXME: With a tested ili2511 we received only garbage for fingers
> + * 6-9. As workaround we add a device tree option to limit the
> + * handled number of fingers
> + */
> + if (touchdata->status == 1)
> + reported_fingers = 6;
> + else if (touchdata->status == 2)
> + reported_fingers = 10;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < reported_fingers && i < data->max_fingers; i++) {
> + input_mt_slot(input, i);
> +
> + finger = &touchdata->fingers[i];
> +
> + touch = finger->status;
> + input_mt_report_slot_state(input, MT_TOOL_FINGER, touch);
> + x = finger->x_low | (finger->x_high << 8);
> + y = finger->y_low | (finger->y_high << 8);
the x and y calculation can go uinside the if() below, right?
> + if (touch) {
> + input_report_abs(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_X, x);
> + input_report_abs(input, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y, y);
> + if (data->use_pressure)
> + input_report_abs(input, ABS_MT_PRESSURE,
> + finger->pressure);
> +
> + }
just a small nitpick, that is more a matter of preference, with
if(!touch)
continue;
we save a level of indentation.
