Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1438542 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/5] Input: alps - cleanup

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/5] Input: alps - cleanup Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-07-07 13:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] Input: alps - cleanup Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2016-07-08 23:40 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/5] Input: alps - cleanup Pali Rohár <pali.rohar@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 12:00 +0200

#1438542 — Re: [PATCH 0/5] Input: alps - cleanup

On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Monday 20 June 2016 17:31:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi Pali,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table.
> > > 
> > > Pali Rohár (5):
> > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V6 out of alps_model_data table
> > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of alps_model_data table
> > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V1 out of alps_model_data table
> > >   Input: alps - warn about unsupported ALPS V9 touchpad
> > >   Input: alps - cleanup ALPS_PROTO_V2 detection
> > 
> > Frankly, I do not quite like this series. The rule of thumb we had: if
> > we can use e7 data to identify the device it should go into table,
> > if we need to have more elaborate logic - then implement it in
> > __alps_indentify(). I would understand if we got rid of the table
> > completely, but we didn't.
> 
> Hans and me agreed that alps_model_data array is for old touchpads
> defined as quirks table. So in this patch series I'm trying to eliminate
> using that array. And it is possible for V1, V4 and V6 touchpads because
> each protocol has only one entry in table. And last user is just V2
> protocol which is I think better...
> 
> So this is my motivation for this patch series.

Any suggestion how to rework it? And any agreement if we should remove
V1/V4/V6 from alps_model_date or let it stay here?

> > I think the patch removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and subsequent patch removing
> > command_mode_resp from alps_model_info are good, the rest are not so
> > much.
> > 
> > Thanks.
> > 
> 

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1439802

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Monday 20 June 2016 17:31:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Hi Pali,
> > > 
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table.
> > > > 
> > > > Pali Rohár (5):
> > > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V6 out of alps_model_data table
> > > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of alps_model_data table
> > > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V1 out of alps_model_data table
> > > >   Input: alps - warn about unsupported ALPS V9 touchpad
> > > >   Input: alps - cleanup ALPS_PROTO_V2 detection
> > > 
> > > Frankly, I do not quite like this series. The rule of thumb we had: if
> > > we can use e7 data to identify the device it should go into table,
> > > if we need to have more elaborate logic - then implement it in
> > > __alps_indentify(). I would understand if we got rid of the table
> > > completely, but we didn't.
> > 
> > Hans and me agreed that alps_model_data array is for old touchpads
> > defined as quirks table. So in this patch series I'm trying to eliminate
> > using that array. And it is possible for V1, V4 and V6 touchpads because
> > each protocol has only one entry in table. And last user is just V2
> > protocol which is I think better...
> > 
> > So this is my motivation for this patch series.
> 
> Any suggestion how to rework it? And any agreement if we should remove
> V1/V4/V6 from alps_model_date or let it stay here?

As I mentioned below I am happy with removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and
subsequently command_mode_resp from alps_model_info, while leaving the
rest in the table.

Thanks.

> 
> > > I think the patch removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and subsequent patch removing
> > > command_mode_resp from alps_model_info are good, the rest are not so
> > > much.
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Pali Rohár
> pali.rohar@gmail.com

-- 
Dmitry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1439935

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Friday 08 July 2016 23:37:54 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 20 June 2016 17:31:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > Hi Pali,
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pali Rohár (5):
> > > > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V6 out of alps_model_data
> > > > >   table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of
> > > > >   alps_model_data table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V1 out
> > > > >   of alps_model_data table Input: alps - warn about
> > > > >   unsupported ALPS V9 touchpad Input: alps - cleanup
> > > > >   ALPS_PROTO_V2 detection
> > > > 
> > > > Frankly, I do not quite like this series. The rule of thumb we
> > > > had: if we can use e7 data to identify the device it should go
> > > > into table, if we need to have more elaborate logic - then
> > > > implement it in __alps_indentify(). I would understand if we
> > > > got rid of the table completely, but we didn't.
> > > 
> > > Hans and me agreed that alps_model_data array is for old
> > > touchpads defined as quirks table. So in this patch series I'm
> > > trying to eliminate using that array. And it is possible for V1,
> > > V4 and V6 touchpads because each protocol has only one entry in
> > > table. And last user is just V2 protocol which is I think
> > > better...
> > > 
> > > So this is my motivation for this patch series.
> > 
> > Any suggestion how to rework it? And any agreement if we should
> > remove V1/V4/V6 from alps_model_date or let it stay here?
> 
> As I mentioned below I am happy with removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and
> subsequently command_mode_resp from alps_model_info, while leaving
> the rest in the table.

Now I'm not fully understand what you mean. This patch series does not 
remove ALPS_PROTO_V4 support. Just move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of 
alps_model_info table structure (same as for V1 and V6). Field 
command_mode_resp is removed from alps_model_info, but that can be done 
only because command_mode_resp is used by ALPS_PROTO_V4 (which is moved 
out of alps_model_info).

So I do not understand why do you think moving ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of 
alps_model_info is good, but ALPS_PROTO_V6 or ALPS_PROTO_V1 not.

> Thanks.
> 
> > > > I think the patch removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and subsequent patch
> > > > removing command_mode_resp from alps_model_info are good, the
> > > > rest are not so much.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web