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

Tom _Lin
2011-08-18T07:54:26Z

Hi JJ
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 14:06 +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> 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
I prefer this way.
> >>>
> >>> :)
> >>
> >> 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
>

Thanks
-TomLin