On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 08:00:14PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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. We still have 4 weeks till merge window + stabilization time past it. Thanks. -- Dmitry
