Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 14:48:40 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Robin Gong <yibin.gong@nxp.com>
Cc:     robin <robin@protonic.nl>, Marco Felsch <m.felsch@pengutronix.de>,
        "linux-input @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel @ vger . kernel . org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
        Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Adam Ford <aford173@gmail.com>,
        "linux-arm-kernel @ lists . infradead . org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] input: keyboard: snvs_pwrkey: Send key events for
 i.MX6 S, DL and Q
Message-ID: <20191122224840.GE248138@dtor-ws>
References: <20190904062329.97520-1-robin@protonic.nl>
 <20190912201300.GA636@penguin>
 <803592d161b9ca75d6ac1c2c54e891a1@protonic.nl>
 <VE1PR04MB663896B94C68B5EF9AE0BE36898C0@VE1PR04MB6638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20190916233701.GH237523@dtor-ws>
 <20191120092749.7rru5fj7eybs4tl6@pengutronix.de>
 <fb98fa1fde9a367d7ab33d04a5804684@protonic.nl>
 <VE1PR04MB6638D79F8C929100F6D96479894E0@VE1PR04MB6638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <VE1PR04MB6638D79F8C929100F6D96479894E0@VE1PR04MB6638.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 01:17:56PM +0000, Robin Gong wrote:
> 
> On 2019-11-21 0:33, robin <robin@protonic.nl> wrote:
> > 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@protonic.nl> 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@protonic.nl>
> > >> > > >> ---
> > >> > > >> @@ -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 ;)
> Sorry for that I miss the mail.
> Understood a little bit confusion about immediate timer for
> the first press, just stand on the view of clean code shape.
> But I'm okay if you prefer to remove timer in the first interrupt
> generation.

Yes, please prepare v4 without the timer for the first generation of the
hardware.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry