Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech - clean up elantech_init

[Dmitry Torokhov]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 01:35:55PM +0800, JJ Ding wrote:
> Hi Wanlong Gao, Daniel,
> 
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:08:08 +0800, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:57 AM, JJ Ding<jj_ding@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > >>   /*
> > >> + * determine hardware version and set some properties according to it.
> > >> + */
> > >> +static void elantech_set_properties(struct elantech_data *etd)
> > >> +{
> > >> +       /*
> > >> +        * Assume every version greater than 0x020030 is new EeePC style
> > >> +        * hardware with 6 byte packets, except 0x020600
> > >> +        */
> > >> +       if (etd->fw_version<  0x020030 || etd->fw_version == 0x020600)
> > >> +               etd->hw_version = 1;
> > >> +       else
> > >> +               etd->hw_version = 2;
> > >> +
> > >> +       /*
> > >> +        * Turn on packet checking by default.
> > >> +        */
> > >> +       etd->paritycheck = 1;
> > >
> > > Assuming paritycheck goes away:
> > Agree.
> I thought about removing it, too. But it occured to me that v1 and v2
> hardware can still have the sysfs entry to turn off parity check.
> 
> And since it's exposed in sysfs, I suppose there might be some init
> scripts relying on it.
> 
> What do you think, Dmitry?
> Shall I remove it?

No, we should not remove it, since it is useful for V1 hardware which we
still support.

How confident are we in the V2/V3 checking not tripping on valid packets?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/