On 8/10/19 7:44 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:50:08PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 8/10/19 6:41 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> Hi Marek, >> >> Hi, >> >>> On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 03:17:04PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> Add support for ILI2117 touch controller. This controller is similar >>>> to the ILI210x and ILI251x, except for the following differences: >>>> - Reading out of touch data must happen at most 300 mS after the >>>> interrupt line was asserted. No command must be sent, the data >>>> are returned upon pure I2C read of 43 bytes long. >>>> - Supports 10 simultaneous touch inputs. >>>> - Touch data format is slightly different. >>> >>> So with this and also I see there is another ili2117a submission, I do >>> believe that we need to switch to using function pointers instead of >>> if/else if/else style cheking of the model. >> >> How about we add tested functionality in first and only then do bigger >> untested changes ? I think that would work better for everyone. > > Sorry, I would really prefer to do what is right and build additional > functionality on top of the good foundation. I asked to switch to the > function pointers before, but you did not want to citing performance > (even though we are using function pointers everywhere in the kernel), > now I gave a draft implementation, I hope you can use it. So why can't we add tested code in first and then add new huge untested patch on top and start testing it ? I think doing it in reverse is actually not helpful, if there is a problem in this massive new patch, it could be reverted without losing functionality.
