On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 2:10 AM Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
...
> > > + 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;
I agree with your comments. Hopefully the author as well.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
