On 08/18/2011 02:01 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
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
Yeah, It makes sense.
Thanks
-Wanlong Gao
--
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
