Hi Dmitry, On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:00:38 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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: > > > > > > > > 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. With V2 it should work reasonbaly well. Although I don't have test data, I didn't encounter any problem turning paritycheck off when testing V2. With V3 we use the check to distinguish first 2-finger packet and the second one. So it's mandatory with V3. Thanks jj > -- > 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 -- 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
