linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: add support for the STMicroelectronics FingerTip touchscreen

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <20170428000751.z66rgjiwjjsmonig@gangnam.samsung>
Date:   Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:07:51 +0900
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...sung.com>
To:     Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
        Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>,
        javier@...hile0.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: add support for the STMicroelectronics
 FingerTip touchscreen

Hi Dmitry,

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 04:56:45PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 08:41:56AM +0900, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 05:39:18PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 10:07:43PM +0900, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > > > +static irqreturn_t stmfts_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	struct stmfts_data *sdata = dev;
> > > > +	int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&sdata->mutex);
> > > > +	ret = i2c_smbus_read_i2c_block_data(sdata->client,
> > > > +						STMFTS_READ_ONE_EVENT,
> > > > +						STMFTS_EVENT_SIZE, sdata->data);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (ret < 0 || ret != STMFTS_EVENT_SIZE)
> > > > +		goto exit;
> > > 
> > > Why do we split read into 2 chunks? Can we issue STMFTS_READ_ALL_EVENT
> > > right away instead of reading first event, analyzing it, and then (maybe)
> > > fetching the rest?
> > 
> > The reason is that I don't need to read all the events at once
> > anytime, for example debug events or confirmation events normally
> > occur with a single event in the fifo. In this case I would read
> > only 32bytes instead of 256bytes.
> > 
> > Unfortunately there are no other ways to know how many events are
> > in the queue beforehand.
> > 
> > There are some "magic" commands to figure that out, but this is
> > specific to the Samsung's version of the stmfts and I don't want
> > to push it to everyone else.
> > 
> > The difference between this version of the driver and the
> > previous one is that in this one if I stress-use of the
> > touchscreen, the throughput is optimised (e.g. if I use more
> > fingers).
> > Before I was reading single events at time, establishing for each
> > read an i2c "handshake", this was de-synchronizing the protocol.
> > 
> > > Also, why do we use smbus protocol for the first event and i2c for the
> > > rest?
> > 
> > Standing to the datasheet, the device is smbus compatible and it
> > should use smbus all the time. The problem is that here the
> > protocol is broken in case I want to read out the full FIFO,
> > which has a total of 256bytes and I have to force the read by
> > using the function "stmfts_read_i2c_block_data()".
> > 
> > Personally I don't like these kind of i2c reads, because they
> > duplicate code, the SMBUS does that already, this is why in the
> > previous version I was reading the events one by one.
> > 
> > Do you think it is better to make a single read of all the fifo?
> 
> It depends on what the common case is. It looks like for touch data you
> always do 2 i2c transactions per interrupt. I wonder if doing it once
> and paying the price of overhead for debug a nd confirmation events is
> not worth it.

makes sense, indeed, because I do it all the time when for touch
events (which are the most) not only when the FIFO is not full.
I will do it this way, then... Thanks!

Andi