Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 8 Dec 2022 17:48:32 -0800
From:   Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>, mka@chromium.org,
        swboyd@chromium.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
        Yunlong Jia <ecs.beijing2022@gmail.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Johnny Chuang <johnny.chuang.emc@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] Input: elants_i2c: Delay longer with reset asserted
Message-ID: <Y5KT8EXRC/i+lBRe@google.com>
References: <20221208192006.1070898-1-dianders@chromium.org>
 <20221208111910.5.I6edfb3f459662c041563a54e5b7df727c27caaba@changeid>
 <Y5KRlNvoVo6ZWV24@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y5KRlNvoVo6ZWV24@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

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@chromium.org>
> 
> Applied, thank you.

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

-- 
Dmitry