On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/18/2011 01:34 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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 -- 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
