On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:35:55PM +0800, JJ Ding wrote:
> Hi Wanlong Gao, Daniel,
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:08:08 +0800, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:57 AM, JJ Ding<jj_ding@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?
No, we should not remove it, since it is useful for V1 hardware which we
still support.
How confident are we in the V2/V3 checking not tripping on valid packets?
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
