On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 10:27:40PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2015-06-01 10:47:30, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 01, 2015 at 05:21:11PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The 3eea8b5d68c801fec788b411582b803463834752 is just bad. > > > > > > > > > > > > You were very welcome to review this patch at the time and/or suggest > > > > > > a fix that pleases everyone. > > > > > > > > > > You should be the one that should suggest fixes, as you broke it in > > > > > the first place. But clearly you don't understand that. > > > > > > > > You actually never asked for a fix, and went head first calling this > > > > patch "bad" and asking for nothing but reverting it. > > > > > > Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 21:08:16 +0200 > > > Subject: 4.1 touchscreen regression on n900 -- pinpointed [was Re: > > > linux-n900 > > > ... > > > Maxime, can you suggest a fix? > > > > How about we do something like below (it needs a small edt-ft5x06 fixup > > that I'll send separately). Not tested. > > + data_present = touchscreen_get_prop_u32(np, > "touchscreen-size-x", > + > input_abs_get_maximum(axis), > + &maximum) | > + touchscreen_get_prop_u32(np, > "touchscreen-fuzz-x", > + > input_abs_get_fuzz(axis), > + &fuzz); > + if (data_present) > + touchscreen_set_params(dev, axis, maximum, fuzz); > > Umm. So you are changing behaviour from "whatever was there" to > "input_abs_get_maximum"... in n900 case.o That _is_ "whatever was there". > Is that a good idea for a > regression fix this late in release cycle? As Maxime mentioned the new behavior is needed for other touchscreens. Given that fixed DTS is going into 4.1 (as far as I understand) we do not need to rush this change into 4.1. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
