Hi JJ, On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 09:28:04AM +0800, JJ Ding wrote: > Hi Éric, > > Thanks for the reply. > > On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:50:47 +0200, Éric Piel <E.A.B.Piel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 16-08-11 13:11, JJ Ding wrote: > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > What do you think about this patch? > > > This is really a simple correction, I am wondering if it's OK to push > > > this to 3.1? > > Hi JJ Ding, > > The merge window of 3.1 is already closed, so only patches which fix > > bugs are accepted. Is there any hardware already available for which > > this patch solves a bug? That would be a great incentive to push it > > > :-) > As far as I know, this doesn't fix a bug. I just want to make sure the > driver and what the firmware sends are consistent. As Éric mentioned, simply extending range to 12 bits is dangerous because we might cause overflows. Blindly increasing ETP_YMAX_V2 is not a good idea either as userspace would expect much larger device and reports would only cover fraction of its surface. We need to separate ETP_YMAX_V2 as absolute maximum from reported coordinates range, like it is done in synaptics driver. > > Thank you for telling me this. I will try this again with newer hardware > support patches, aiming for 3.2 inclusion. Yes, if hardware currently supported by mainline version of the driver is not affected it is better to queue the patch[es] for 3.2. BTW, that means that you should not wait till 3.2 merge window opens as we'll need time to review the patches and get them into my 'next' branch. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
