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

[JJ Ding]

Hi Dmitry,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 23:00:38 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> > > >
> > > > 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.
With V2 it should work reasonbaly well. Although I don't have test data,
I didn't encounter any problem turning paritycheck off when testing V2.

With V3 we use the check to distinguish first 2-finger packet and the
second one. So it's mandatory with V3.

Thanks
jj
> -- 
> Dmitry
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/