On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 11:30:29PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 8/10/19 9:05 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > 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. > > Sure, but this patch was posted 5 months ago and was in real world > deployment since, so it has 5 months of practical testing. I don't want > to throw that away. > > The patch you want me to test can easily be rebased on the ILI2117 > support and then we retain those months of testing, which I think is > much better. OK, fine, I rebased the patch[es] on top of this one and uploaded to: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dtor/input.git iili2xxx-touchscreen Please give it a try and if it works I'll merge into next. Thanks. -- Dmitry
