Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:38:16 +0800 | From | Wanlong Gao <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech - clean up elantech_init |
| |
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<gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:57 AM, JJ Ding<jj_ding@emc.com.tw> 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<djkurtz@chromium.org> >>> -- >>> 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 >
| |