On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 10:16:01PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 9:58 PM Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > The chip is similar, but has status bits at different positions, > > so use the correct bits. > > ... > > > + if (ts->shifted_status) { Instead of the flag I think it would be better if you had ts->status_shift and did status = buf[7] >> ts->status_shift; ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 0, &buf[1], status & BIT(0)); ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 1, &buf[4], status & BIT(1)); > > + ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 0, &buf[1], !!(buf[7] & 1)); > > + ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 1, &buf[4], !!(buf[7] & 2)); > > BIT(0) > BIT(1) > > > + } else { > > + ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 0, &buf[1], !!(buf[7] & 2)); > > + ektf2127_report2_contact(ts, 1, &buf[4], !!(buf[7] & 4)); > > BIT(1) > BIT(2) > > > + } > > ... > > > + if (dev->of_node && > > + of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "elan,ektf2232")) > > if (device_is_compatible(...)) Actually I think this better come from data obtained via device_get_match_data(). > > > + ts->shifted_status = true; > Thanks. -- Dmitry