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

[Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 08/18/2011 02:01 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>> On 08/18/2011 01:34 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>   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@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>   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@emc.com.tw>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>    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