From: sparks333 <spa...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 21:47:34
|
Hello, Sorry about the double-post. Made a little bit of headway here. Poking around in the /sys/devices/platform/omap2_mcspi.1/spi1.0 folder showed in1_input and in2_input, along with pen_down and a few other attributes. It appears that cat in0_input works just fine - I can run my finger along the screen and the values change according - but cat in1_input (which I assume is the Y direction) stays adamantly at zero. I can only assume this means the chip is bad, I have a loose solder connection, or something still isn't configured right. I'll poke around a bit more. summoningdark, when you issue that command (cat /sys/devices/platform/omap2_mcspi.1/spi1.0/in0_input and in1_input) what is the output? Sparks -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26157857.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 22:08:06
|
Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > > Hello, > Sorry about the double-post. Made a little bit of headway here. > Poking around in the /sys/devices/platform/omap2_mcspi.1/spi1.0 folder > showed in1_input and in2_input, along with pen_down and a few other > attributes. It appears that cat in0_input works just fine - I can run my > finger along the screen and the values change according - but cat > in1_input (which I assume is the Y direction) stays adamantly at zero. I > can only assume this means the chip is bad, I have a loose solder > connection, or something still isn't configured right. I'll poke around a > bit more. summoningdark, when you issue that command (cat > /sys/devices/platform/omap2_mcspi.1/spi1.0/in0_input and in1_input) what > is the output? > > Sparks > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26157872.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: sparks333 <spa...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 23:03:14
|
Hi there I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same configuration if it were truly random... In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. Sparks Trilogic wrote: > > Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same problem. > Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the GumStix > site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung display on > a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. > > I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, > values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. > > I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on > the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached > to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I > believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? > > Trilogic > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26157887.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:40:59
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100% functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158279.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:41:20
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100% functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158280.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:41:54
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158326.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:43:06
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158440.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:43:36
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158470.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:44:39
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158496.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Trilogic <ro...@ex...> - 2009-11-02 23:45:18
|
The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the Chestnut43 board. The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these two boards a very good review. I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. Trilogic sparks333 wrote: > > Hi there > I just requested an RMA from Gumstix as well for the Palo - I wonder if > the Palo 43 has an inherent design flaw with the Overo Fire? Seems odd > that all three of us experiencing this issue would have precisely the same > configuration if it were truly random... > In any case, just for kicks n' giggles, does both the in1_input and > in0_input values change on the Chestnut board? I am assuming they should > based on the fact that (1) it makes sense, and (2) my board doesn't work, > but I guess it's not inconceivable that that input doesn't change. Just > trying to cover all bases. Thanks for verifying. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> >> Just picked up this thread, I am experiencing the very exact same >> problem. Palo43, Overo Fire, Samsung 4.3 display, latest binaries of the >> GumStix site. No touch response. But, with the same Overo Fire, Samsung >> display on a Chestnut43, the touch works fine. >> >> I checked the output as stated below and am observing the same info, >> values change on the in0_input and do NOT change on the in1_input. >> >> I have requested an RMA from GumStix for return of the Palo43, based on >> the fact that all the other parts are functioning correctly when attached >> to a Chestnut43. Since the touch circuits seem identical between boards I >> believe we have all received bad Palo43 boards. But I may be wrong?? >> >> Trilogic >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158561.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: sparks333 <spa...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 23:53:14
|
I was worried about that. I wonder where the Y-value outputs, then... like I said, in0_input and in1_input for Y and X makes intuitive sense, but intuitive sense and software never really went hand-in-hand :P I'll trawl through the module code and see if I can pick up any hints. Given that the Palo35 is the latest, I'm curious to see what has changed - aside from the battery backup and accelerometer input, there doesn't seem to be much functionality change. Let me know how the Fire plays with it. I'll continue poking around - maybe one day I'll get my plug-'n-play touchscreen playing. Sparks Trilogic wrote: > > The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input > value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 > just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the > Chestnut43 board. > > The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going > back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type > of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will > NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include > the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power > and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these > two boards a very good review. > > I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 > board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. > > Trilogic > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26158987.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: sparks333 <spa...@gm...> - 2009-11-02 23:54:15
|
I was worried about that. I wonder where the Y-value outputs, then... like I said, in0_input and in1_input for Y and X makes intuitive sense, but intuitive sense and software never really went hand-in-hand :P I'll trawl through the module code and see if I can pick up any hints. Given that the Palo35 is the latest, I'm curious to see what has changed - aside from the battery backup and accelerometer input, there doesn't seem to be much functionality change. Let me know how the Fire plays with it. I'll continue poking around - maybe one day I'll get my plug-'n-play touchscreen playing. Sparks Trilogic wrote: > > The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input > value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 > just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the > Chestnut43 board. > > The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going > back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type > of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will > NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include > the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power > and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these > two boards a very good review. > > I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 > board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. > > Trilogic > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Touchscreen-problem-on-palo43-tp26121476p26159029.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: gm782372 <gm7...@gm...> - 2009-11-03 17:54:12
|
in0_input is vaux from the ads7846 touchscreen controller and in1_input is vbatt. Try getevent. ABS_X is event type 0, ABS_Y is event type 1. sparks333 wrote: > I was worried about that. I wonder where the Y-value outputs, then... like I > said, in0_input and in1_input for Y and X makes intuitive sense, but > intuitive sense and software never really went hand-in-hand :P I'll trawl > through the module code and see if I can pick up any hints. > Given that the Palo35 is the latest, I'm curious to see what has changed - > aside from the battery backup and accelerometer input, there doesn't seem to > be much functionality change. Let me know how the Fire plays with it. I'll > continue poking around - maybe one day I'll get my plug-'n-play touchscreen > playing. > > Sparks > > > Trilogic wrote: >> The test seems to be invalid, on my semi-working Chestnut43 the in0_input >> value changes similar to the Palo43 board, but the in1_input remains at 0 >> just like the Palo43 board even though the touch works fine on the >> Chestnut43 board. >> >> The Chestnut43 board does have it's own unique problems and will be going >> back to GS for RMA also. At initial power up all works fine, but any type >> of reboot/reset without removing power renders the LCD inop. The LCD will >> NOT display again until all power is removed from the Chestnut43 include >> the USB console connection. After a few minutes sans power, reapply power >> and all is well until next reboot/reset. Really can't give either of these >> two boards a very good review. >> >> I am waiting on my 3.5 inch LG display so I can begin testing the Palo35 >> board. I hope it proves to be 100 percent functional.. >> >> Trilogic >> >> > |