On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-07 at 16:48 +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> On 05/07/2013 04:38 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> >> I bet it will be easier to track for Jiri if you resend the full series: >> - the egalax reordering >> - the remove of the duplicate ID >> >> As mentioned previously, also remove the entry in hid-multitouch (the >> one containing MT_CLS_EGALAX, not the _SERIAL one). > > Then it repeats v1, doesn't it? I can not speak for Jiri, but IMO, it's easier to say: "Hey Jiri, pick up the patch series v3 for this topic", instead of "Hey Jiri, please pick the patch 1 from v1 and patch 2 from v4 about this topic." So I would say yes, repeat v1 but add a comment in the cover letter explaining the changes (for example, no changes in patch 1/2, patch 2/2 amended like this and that). > > The difference between MT_USB_DEVICE and HID_USB_DEVICE macros is > in .group member. Does it somehow affect device matching? > It does internally to some extend, but it won't change the final handling. MT_USB_DEVICE is cleaner because it will ask to grab only the MT interface. HID_USB_DEVICE will introduce a race with hid-generic to handle the non-MT interfaces, which are not present in the eGalax case IIRC. So basically, we just missed that HID_USB_ / MT_USB_ problem when including the patch upstream. Cheers, Benjamin -- 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
