On Tuesday 09 August 2016 09:56:07 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Saturday 09 July 2016 11:58:03 Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Friday 08 July 2016 23:37:54 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > On Monday 20 June 2016 17:31:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > Hi Pali, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > > > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pali Rohár (5): > > > > > > > Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V6 out of alps_model_data > > > > > > > table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of > > > > > > > alps_model_data table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V1 > > > > > > > out of alps_model_data table Input: alps - warn about > > > > > > > unsupported ALPS V9 touchpad Input: alps - cleanup > > > > > > > ALPS_PROTO_V2 detection > > > > > > > > > > > > Frankly, I do not quite like this series. The rule of thumb > > > > > > we had: if we can use e7 data to identify the device it > > > > > > should go into table, if we need to have more elaborate > > > > > > logic - then implement it in __alps_indentify(). I would > > > > > > understand if we got rid of the table completely, but we > > > > > > didn't. > > > > > > > > > > Hans and me agreed that alps_model_data array is for old > > > > > touchpads defined as quirks table. So in this patch series > > > > > I'm trying to eliminate using that array. And it is possible > > > > > for V1, V4 and V6 touchpads because each protocol has only > > > > > one entry in table. And last user is just V2 protocol which > > > > > is I think better... > > > > > > > > > > So this is my motivation for this patch series. > > > > > > > > Any suggestion how to rework it? And any agreement if we should > > > > remove V1/V4/V6 from alps_model_date or let it stay here? > > > > > > As I mentioned below I am happy with removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and > > > subsequently command_mode_resp from alps_model_info, while > > > leaving the rest in the table. > > > > Now I'm not fully understand what you mean. This patch series does > > not remove ALPS_PROTO_V4 support. Just move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of > > alps_model_info table structure (same as for V1 and V6). Field > > command_mode_resp is removed from alps_model_info, but that can be > > done only because command_mode_resp is used by ALPS_PROTO_V4 > > (which is moved out of alps_model_info). > > > > So I do not understand why do you think moving ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of > > alps_model_info is good, but ALPS_PROTO_V6 or ALPS_PROTO_V1 not. > > Hi Dmitry! If you do not agree with my changes, please can you let me > know what is needed to rework or change? Thanks. Hi! Can you clarify above? Or tell me what is wrong? Hans already acked this series, but if there are some problems I can try to fix them... -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
