From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758607AbZJLXJF (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757512AbZJLXJF (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:05 -0400 Received: from ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.214]:45566 "EHLO ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758244AbZJLXJE (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:09:04 -0400 Message-ID: <4AD3B6E2.9020703@euromail.se> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:08:18 +0200 From: Henrik Rydberg User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: bcm5974: report ABS_MT events References: <1255386223-4109-1-git-send-email-rydberg@euromail.se> <1255386223-4109-2-git-send-email-rydberg@euromail.se> <20091012154528.6830da60.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20091012154528.6830da60.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 83.248.196.134 X-Scan-Result: No virus found in message 1MxU03-0005Xi-AA. X-Scan-Signature: ch-smtp03.sth.basefarm.net 1MxU03-0005Xi-AA dcd54e4e60b4f1278acaa1da5cd7ab0d Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:23:43 +0200 > "Henrik Rydberg" wrote: > >> This patch makes bcm5974 report raw multi-touch (MT) data in the form >> of ABS_MT events. The module parameter (nomt) may be used to turn off >> the effect of this patch. >> > > Why do we need a module parameter to disable the newly-added feature? All MT events bypass the input filtering and gets sent directly to the X driver. Although it works as intended, without visible side effects, the stream of events is rather large, and since the bypassing is completely new behavior, I felt compelled to provide an option to turn it all off. Perhaps it is just me being paranoid. > > IMO, your first patch ("input: bcm5974: retract efi-broken > suspend_resume") is 2.6.32 material whereas this one is 2.6.33 > material? > > This assumes that the two patches can be safely separated in this > manner, which does appear to be the case. > I was imagining both for 2.6.33; the efi booting is just beginning to work, and since no distro is using it fully so far the problem currently only hits the adventure-seekers anyways. Cheers, Henrik