lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fix n900 dts file to work around 4.1 touchscreen regression on n900
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:02:59PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2015-05-29 13:48:47, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 10:34:56PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > > > > single DT, you don't even use that property in your driver, and now
> > > > > > that you realise you meant something else, you want the code that
> > > > >
> > > > > not Pali, Sebastian.
> > > > >
> > > > > > actually parse the *right* property and does the right thing, that all
> > > > > > other DT agree (and depend on) to be reverted?
> > > > >
> > > > > We shouldn't revert, that I agree. But both properties should be parsed.
> > > >
> > > > No. If the property is wrong, and nobody parsed it, I do not see any reason to
> > > > start now.
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > But that's not what I'm asking. See a changelog of
> > > 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 and compare it with what it
> > > actually does.
> > >
> > > It is buggy. If fuzz is specified but maximum is not, it overwites
> > > maximum with zero.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > >
> > > Plus it introduces new failure "if (!test_bit(axis, dev->absbit))".
> >
> > That is not a new failure. It actually warns users that they trying to
> > specify in DT something that will be ignored by the kernel (because
> > without that absbit kernel will ignore all requests to that event code).
>
> What if driver sets the bits after parsing device tree?

It should not.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-30 00:21    [W:0.072 / U:3.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site