Re: [PATCH 6/6] Input: elantech - add v3 hardware support

[Wanlong Gao]

On 08/18/2011 02:01 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 01:34 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >   wrote:
> > > > On 08/18/2011 01:26 PM, JJ Ding wrote:
> > > > > Hi Wanlong Gao,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:01:52 +0800, Wanlong
> > > > > Gao<gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >   wrote:
> > > > > > On 08/18/2011 09:57 AM, JJ Ding wrote:
> > > > > > > v3 hardware's packet format is almost identical to v2 (one/three
> > > > > > > finger
> > > > > > > touch),
> > > > > > > except when sensing two finger touch, the hardware sends 12 bytes of
> > > > > > > data.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: JJ Ding<jj_ding@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >    Documentation/input/elantech.txt |  104 ++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > > >    drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c   |  218
> > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > > > >    drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h   |   11 ++
> > > > > > >    3 files changed, 303 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +static int determine_packet_v3(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > elantech_check_parity_v1
> > > > > > packet_simple_check_v2
> > > > > > determine_packet_v3
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why not consistent them?
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, how do these names sound to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > elantech_check_parity_v1
> > > > > elantech_packet_check_v2
> > > > > elantech_packet_check_v3
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > jj
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, sounds perfectly.
> > >
> > > Or just:
> > >
> > > elantech_packet_check_v1
> > > elantech_packet_check_v2
> > > elantech_packet_check_v3
> > >
> > > :)
> >
> > Hmm... maybe they can go into an elantech_packet_check()?
> > like:
> > case 1:
> >         ...
> > case 2:
> >         ...
> > What do you think? ;)
> >
> > Thanks
> > -Wanlong Gao
>
> Since we've already parsed the hardware type at this point, it seems
> inefficient to parse it again inside another function.
> I would prefer individual functions.
>
> Thanks,
> -Daniel

Yeah, It makes sense.

Thanks
-Wanlong Gao
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/