Hello Nick, On 12/16/2014 06:07 PM, Nick Dyer wrote: > On 16/12/14 16:49, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> Awesome, what do you think about the change to have a common input device >> initialization function that I squashed in your original patch? >> mxt_initialize_t100_input_device() and mxt_initialize_t9_input_device() >> are very similar so I think that is a sensible refactoring as well. >> >> If you agree with the change I can post it on top of your patch once it >> lands in mainline. > > I had been keeping them separate on the basis that we don't want changes to > support new T100 features to cause regressions in the old T9 handling. But > there is a fair amount of duplication as you say, probably worth addressing. > Yeah but if there are regressions I think we should address those instead of duplicating code, to make the driver more maintainable in the long term. > FWIW I have a queue of stuff that might be considered higher priority, the > next 15-patch set would be up to "add regulator control support": > https://github.com/ndyer/linux/compare/dtor:next...for-dtor > > It does cause me some issues to merge upstream refactorings past that lot... > Sure, I can hold any refactoring patches until you have pushed all your queue so you don't have to resolve conflicts. Just let me know when is a good time to push the refactoring changes. Thanks a lot for your help and best regards, Javier -- 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
