On 24/06/2026 06:28, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi David,
On Sun, Jun 21, 2026 at 07:11:45PM +0200, David Heidelberg wrote:
On 28/05/2026 00:13, David Heidelberg wrote:
On 27/05/2026 23:56, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi David,
On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:45:35AM +0200, David Heidelberg via B4 Relay wrote:
From: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
We know the driver is reporting s3706b, introduce the compatible so we
can more easily introduce quirks for weird touchscreen replacements in
followup series.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: David Heidelberg <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
b/arch/ arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
index 6b7378cf4d493..148164d456a5a 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845-oneplus-common.dtsi
@@ -475,17 +475,17 @@ bq27441_fg: bq27441-battery@55 {
};
};
&i2c12 {
status = "okay";
clock-frequency = <400000>;
synaptics-rmi4-i2c@20 {
- compatible = "syna,rmi4-i2c";
+ compatible = "syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c";
So I believe we established that this device (s3706b) does not in fact
implement rmi4 protocol properly. Why do we have "syna,rmi4-i2c" as a
fallback? Shouldn't it be just "syna,rmi4-s3706b"?
The vendor supplies s3706b which does implement the RMI4 properly.
The 3rd party replacement impersonating original parts may not implement
it properly, but I don't address this issue in this initial submission.
With this compatible we know which original part is used by the vendor
and installed in the phones, so later we can deduct specific sequences
for the replacement aftermarket parts to keep phone touchscreen working
same as they do on Android without affecting other devices.
Hello Dmitry.
May I ask what is currently preventing this series from moving forward?
The first version was posted in 2023 [1]. I picked it up again in 2025 [2]
and am now on the 9th iteration (this patchset). At this point, the series
has been under discussion for well over a year, with relatively little
feedback and increasingly long gaps between review rounds.
The current approach is based on the guidance I have received so far,
including suggestions from the device-tree maintainers. When concerns were
raised, I tried to address them and rework the series accordingly.
What I am struggling with is understanding what specific issue still needs
to be resolved before these patches can be accepted. If there are remaining
requirements, objections to the approach, or technical concerns that I have
not addressed, I would appreciate having them stated explicitly so I can
work on them.
I also split out the straightforward, self-contained changes in the hope
that at least those could progress independently while I continued working
on any follow-up requirements. However, even those patches do not appear to
be moving forward.
Could you please clarify what outcome you would like to see from this
series, and what concrete changes would be required to get it accepted?
I am still confused about how you want to differentiate between the full
RMI4 support vs the OnePlus flavor. The "syna,rmi4-s3706b", as you
mentioned, implements RMI4 protocol properly, so we do not need to
actually have it documented neither in binding nor in DTS.
--- part 1 ---
This series addresses identification within device-tree. It's normal recommended
practice.
If we know, the device ships specific, but **compliant** variant, we just put it
as compatible = "more-specific", "less-specific"; in this case
"syna,rmi4-s3706b", "syna,rmi4-i2c"
This approach is used everywhere. This has nothing to do with after-market
parts.
--- part 2 (irrelevant for this series) ---
The issue you have with after-market parts that are not compliant and we
need to figure out how to deal with them. Inside the driver I
As was suggested by device-tree folks, this is the first step, there isn't
better one available. If there is, please suggest one, and I'll apply it.
essentially need a"incomplete protocol" flag that we can use to
implement additional checks or skip known to be not implemented
functions/queries. In DT we could introduce something like
"oneplus,rmi4-i2c" that is decidedly not compatible with "syna,rmi4-i2c"
and neither one should be a fallback for the other.
This of course needs buy-in from DT maintainers.
As you can see, this still holds Acked-by and Reviewed-by from the relevant
people - Krzysztof and Konrad.
Does this make sense?
For the scope we're discussing it doesn't seems so.
This discussion should be associated with the last revision of the full series I
sent 3 months ago. We're in very unflattering state, where:
2018 - these aftermarket touchscreen worked on Android well enough for people
to have working touch (let's say with slightly worse experience then the original).
2026 in the mainline, we cannot even more forward and report to user-space
there is aftermarket non-compliant piece of hardware installed.
Actionable steps I suggest after this series lands:
1. don't do any changes, but since we know what 3rd party touchscreen do
incorrectly deviating from the standard, REPORT it to the userspace, so USER
know, their device (phone/tablet) doesn't have original part.
2. then figure out, IF we can reasonably well workaround it and HOW to do it
These two steps present some progress which could be discussed and could lead us
somewhere, what do you think?
David
Thanks.
