Hi! I have just two notes:
On Friday 10 March 2017 07:41:47 Masaki Ota wrote:
...
> + x_phys = x_pitch * (num_x_electrode - 1); /* In 0.1 mm units */
> + y_phys = y_pitch * (num_y_electrode - 1); /* In 0.1 mm units */
...
> + priv->x_res = priv->x_max * 10 / x_phys; /* units / mm */
> + priv->y_res = priv->y_max * 10 / y_phys; /* units / mm */
> +
> + } else {
...
> + x_phys = x_pitch * (num_x_electrode - 1); /* In 0.1 mm units */
> + y_phys = y_pitch * (num_y_electrode - 1); /* In 0.1 mm units */
> +
> + priv->x_res = priv->x_max * 10 / x_phys; /* units / mm */
> + priv->y_res = priv->y_max * 10 / y_phys; /* units / mm */
Looks like above 4 lines are same in both if { } and else { } blocks.
So it can be moved outside of if blocks.
> + }
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -2490,7 +2515,10 @@ static int alps_update_btn_info_ss4_v2(unsigned char otp[][4],
> {
> unsigned char is_btnless;
>
> - is_btnless = (otp[1][1] >> 3) & 0x01;
> + if (priv->dev_id[2] == 0x28)
This check "dev_id[2] == 0x28" is used on more places. What about
introducing some flag or some boolean macro? Check "dev_id[2] == 0x28"
is magical does not say anything what it is doing...
--
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
