From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Henrik Rydberg" Subject: Re: Atmel updates to atmel_mxt_ts touch controller driver Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:48:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20130329164841.GA2230@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <1361555907-19840-1-git-send-email-nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtprelay-h22.telenor.se ([195.54.99.197]:59469 "EHLO smtprelay-h22.telenor.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754909Ab3C2Qrx (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:47:53 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1361555907-19840-1-git-send-email-nick.dyer@itdev.co.uk> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Dyer Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Daniel Kurtz , Joonyoung Shim , Alan.Bowens@atmel.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, pmeerw@pmeerw.net, bleung@chromium.org, olofj@chromium.org Hi Nick, > The following patches are a large series of updates in functionality to the > atmel_mxt_ts touch driver. They apply cleanly to input/next. I guess this is no longer true. > These changes address some of the same issues that appear in the patchsets > submitted by Daniel Kurtz and Peter Meerwald. However, they go much further in > adding support for new objects, improving performance, and increasing > reliability. They have been regularly regression tested against old and new > chips which use the same protocol. > > We also provide a set of user-space utilities as open source which are > available from github and work well with this driver: > https://github.com/atmel-maxtouch/obp-utils > > Most of my focus in working on these changes has been to support Atmel's > customers, who tend not to be using the mainline kernel. Unfortunately this > has generated somewhat of a backlog in getting these improvements into > mainline. My current focus is to get these improvements upstream and I have > time allocated to make any alterations as necessary. Since the scope of this > patchset is so large any upstream delta tends to cause a big rebasing effort. > I would suggest that I merge any useful improvements from the other patchsets > to make a combined patchset. Are you planning to submit a version for 3.9? If you do, please consider sending a smaller set. Thanks, Henrik