On Wednesday 14 September 2016 23:02:08 Pali Rohár wrote: > 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... > PING -- Pali Rohár pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx -- 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
