On 16/12/14 16:49, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Awesome, what do you think about the change to have a common input device > initialization function that I squashed in your original patch? > mxt_initialize_t100_input_device() and mxt_initialize_t9_input_device() > are very similar so I think that is a sensible refactoring as well. > > If you agree with the change I can post it on top of your patch once it > lands in mainline. I had been keeping them separate on the basis that we don't want changes to support new T100 features to cause regressions in the old T9 handling. But there is a fair amount of duplication as you say, probably worth addressing. FWIW I have a queue of stuff that might be considered higher priority, the next 15-patch set would be up to "add regulator control support": https://github.com/ndyer/linux/compare/dtor:next...for-dtor It does cause me some issues to merge upstream refactorings past that lot... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |