Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:06:29 +0800 | From | Wanlong Gao <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] Input: elantech - add v3 hardware support |
| |
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
| |