Re: [PATCH 00/14 v3] cleanup atmel_mxt_ts

["Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@euromail.se>]

Hi Daniel,

> Thank you to Henrik for reviewing again, and ACK'ing patch 3.

Reading it again, I do have some more comments, actually.

> Could I get a review for the rest of the set?
> There will actually be quite a few more patches that follow these.

I think that is part of the problem.  What you want to achieve is all
good, but something else is not quite right.  Reading through these
patches felt like a lot of work, although it should not really be that
much. A closer look suggests the patches are on average 20% too large,
the rest being irrelevant changes. That may look small, but apparently
it is off-putting enough. The less work it is to accept your patches,
the more likely they are to be processed quickly.

Please find brief notes below.

> > Daniel Kurtz (14):
> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - use CONFIG_PM_SLEEP

Seems to clash with current mainline.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - only allow root to update firmware

OK.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - refactor mxt_read/write_reg to take a length

The return value change should be split out in a separate patch,
subject to stable as well. Also, there is no real benefit in changing
the name from __mxt to mxt. It only makes the patch longer.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - verify object size in mxt_write_object

OK, also stable material.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - do not read extra (checksum) byte

OK.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - dump each message on just 1 line

OK.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - refactor mxt_object_show

Start of for loop does not need to change. The buf_end - buf is less
clear than the existing PAGE_SIZE - count.  The realloc feels clunky,
could it not allocate the max size once instead?

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - optimize writing of object table entries

Seems the index variable could be kept, no real need to move the bject
deklaration around, small things like that.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - refactor get info

Why not keep mxt_get_info(), just using the smaller implementation?
Why change the formatting of the debug messages?

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - simplify event reporting

Why change formatting of function, why reformat status initialization,
why new name for pressure, why change the shift functions, why change
the debug message.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - cache T9 reportid range when reading object
> >    table

Why change touchevent() function name and arguments, why not reuse the
reportid variables. Why reformat the object assignment. Aren't
T9_reportid values zero already.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - parse vector field of data packets

These could be deferred until they are actually used.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - send all MT-B slots in one input report

OK.

> >  Input: atmel_mxt_ts - parse T6 reports

Aren't T6_reportid values zero already.

Hope this helps.

Thanks.
Henrik