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

[Pali RohÃr]

On Saturday 09 July 2016 11:58:03 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> On Friday 08 July 2016 23:37:54 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali RohÃr 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 RohÃr wrote:
> > > > > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Pali RohÃr (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.

Hi Dmitry! If you do not agree with my changes, please can you let me
know what is needed to rework or change? Thanks.

> > 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 RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx