On Thu, 10 May 2012, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > >> > well, the idea was to keep the memory footprint low. As these values > >> > are only needed at init, then I freed them once I finished using them. > >> > I can of course skip the pointer, but in that case, wouldn't the > >> > struct declaration be worthless? > >> > >> My bad, I misread the placement of the free() statement. I was also > >> concerned about memory, since HID is big enough a memory hog as it > >> is. Barring the added complexity of this patch, it now makes more > >> sense. > >> > >> Acked-by: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c: In function ‘mt_post_parse’: > > drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c:673: error: invalid type argument of ‘->’ (have ‘unsigned int’) > > make[1]: *** [drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.o] Error 1 > > > > I believe that > > > > td->last_slot_field = f->usages[field_count_per_touch - 1]->hid; > > > > should be > > > > td->last_slot_field = f->usages[field_count_per_touch - 1]; > > Ouch, indeed. the "->hid" is extra. When I split the patch 1 and 5, I > missed that one. > > I tested it without the ->hid, and it's good. Do I need to resend the patch? No, that's fine, I have fixed that up and applied. I am not applying the rest of the patchset yet. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- 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
