From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wanlong Gao Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech - clean up elantech_init Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:38:16 +0800 Message-ID: <4E4CA548.7050804@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1313632629-23603-1-git-send-email-jj_ding@emc.com.tw> <1313632629-23603-6-git-send-email-jj_ding@emc.com.tw> <4E4C8218.8040100@cn.fujitsu.com> <87aab746ys.fsf@emc.com.tw> Reply-To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from cn.fujitsu.com ([222.73.24.84]:56546 "EHLO song.cn.fujitsu.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751268Ab1HRFjX (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 01:39:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87aab746ys.fsf@emc.com.tw> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: JJ Ding Cc: Daniel Kurtz , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Seth Forshee , Dmitry Torokhov , Aaron Huang , Tom Lin , Eric Piel , Chase Douglas , Henrik Rydberg , Alessandro Rubini On 08/18/2011 01:35 PM, JJ Ding wrote: > Hi Wanlong Gao, Daniel, > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:08:08 +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote: >> On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:57 AM, JJ Ding wrote: >>>> /* >>>> + * determine hardware version and set some properties according to it. >>>> + */ >>>> +static void elantech_set_properties(struct elantech_data *etd) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* >>>> + * Assume every version greater than 0x020030 is new EeePC style >>>> + * hardware with 6 byte packets, except 0x020600 >>>> + */ >>>> + if (etd->fw_version< 0x020030 || etd->fw_version == 0x020600) >>>> + etd->hw_version = 1; >>>> + else >>>> + etd->hw_version = 2; >>>> + >>>> + /* >>>> + * Turn on packet checking by default. >>>> + */ >>>> + etd->paritycheck = 1; >>> >>> Assuming paritycheck goes away: >> Agree. > I thought about removing it, too. But it occured to me that v1 and v2 > hardware can still have the sysfs entry to turn off parity check. > > And since it's exposed in sysfs, I suppose there might be some init > scripts relying on it. > > What do you think, Dmitry? > Shall I remove it? > > Thanks, > jj aha, maybe you can make the sysfs entry func to be noop, and mark it to be obsoleted, or just remove it? Thanks -Wanlong Gao > >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Kurtz >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks >> Wanlong Gao > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >