On Sat, Jul 09, 2016 at 11:58:03AM +0200, 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. Quoting from my earlier email (you can see it a few lines above as well: > > > > > 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. I am OK with moving ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of the alps_model_data table because it needs not only e7 response data, but also ec data, so moving this protocol out of alps_model_data and writing custom comparison also allows us to drop command_mode_resp field from alps_model_info structure. ALPS_PROTO_V1 and ALPS_PROTO_V6, just like ALPS_PROTO_V2, only need e7 response data. That is why I do not see the benefit of removing them form the alps_model_data table and open-coding the comparison. I hope this clears my position. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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
