Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Jul 2022 16:55:06 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 4/6] Input: mt6779-keypad - support double keys matrix | From | AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <> |
| |
Il 21/07/22 16:51, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:34, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> wrote: > >> Il 20/07/22 16:48, Mattijs Korpershoek ha scritto: >>> MediaTek keypad has 2 modes of detecting key events: >>> - single key: each (row, column) can detect one key >>> - double key: each (row, column) is a group of 2 keys >>> >>> Double key support exists to minimize cost, since it reduces the number >>> of pins required for physical keys. >>> >>> Double key is configured by setting BIT(0) of the KP_SEL register. >>> >>> Enable double key matrix support based on the mediatek,double-keys >>> device tree property. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@baylibre.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c >>> index bf447bf598fb..9a5dbd415dac 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c >>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/mt6779-keypad.c >>> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ >>> #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK GENMASK(13, 0) >>> #define MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MAX_MS 256 >>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL 0x0020 >>> +#define MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE BIT(0) >>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COL GENMASK(15, 10) >>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW GENMASK(9, 4) >>> #define MTK_KPD_SEL_COLMASK(c) GENMASK((c) + 9, 10) >>> @@ -31,6 +32,7 @@ struct mt6779_keypad { >>> struct clk *clk; >>> u32 n_rows; >>> u32 n_cols; >>> + bool double_keys; >>> DECLARE_BITMAP(keymap_state, MTK_KPD_NUM_BITS); >>> }; >>> >>> @@ -67,8 +69,13 @@ static irqreturn_t mt6779_keypad_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id) >>> continue; >>> >>> key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32; >>> - row = key / 9; >>> - col = key % 9; >>> + if (keypad->double_keys) { >>> + row = key / 13; >>> + col = (key % 13) / 2; >>> + } else { >>> + row = key / 9; >>> + col = key % 9; >>> + } >> >> I don't fully like this if branch permanently evaluating true or false, as no >> runtime can actually change this result... >> >> In practice, it's fine, but I was wondering if anyone would disagree with the >> following proposal... >> >> struct mt6779_keypad { >> ....... >> void (*calc_row_col)(unsigned int *row, unsigned int *col); >> }; >> >> In mt6779_keypad_irq_handler: >> >> key = bit_nr / 32 * 16 + bit_nr % 32; >> keypad->calc_row_col(&row, &col); >> >> and below... >> >>> >>> scancode = MATRIX_SCAN_CODE(row, col, row_shift); >>> /* 1: not pressed, 0: pressed */ >>> @@ -150,6 +157,8 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> >>> wakeup = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "wakeup-source"); >>> >>> + keypad->double_keys = device_property_read_bool(&pdev->dev, "mediatek,double-keys"); >>> + >>> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "n_row=%d n_col=%d debounce=%d\n", >>> keypad->n_rows, keypad->n_cols, debounce); >>> >>> @@ -166,6 +175,10 @@ static int mt6779_keypad_pdrv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> regmap_write(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE, >>> (debounce * (1 << 5)) & MTK_KPD_DEBOUNCE_MASK); >>> >>> + if (keypad->double_keys) >> >> keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_double_kp; >> >>> + regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, >>> + MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE, MTK_KPD_SEL_DOUBLE_KP_MODE); >>> + >> >> } else { >> keypad->calc_row_col = mt6779_keypad_calc_row_col_single_kp; >> } >> >>> regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_ROW, >>> MTK_KPD_SEL_ROWMASK(keypad->n_rows)); >>> regmap_update_bits(keypad->regmap, MTK_KPD_SEL, MTK_KPD_SEL_COL, >> >> what do you think? > > Hi Angelo, > > Thank you for your detailed suggestion. I like it and since I have to > resend a v2 anyways, I will consider implementing it. > On the other hand, I'm a little reluctant because it means that I'll > have to remove Matthias's reviewed-by :( >
Yes, you will have to. In that case:
Matthias, any considerations about this idea? :)))
>> >> Cheers, >> Angelo
| |