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

[Pali RohÃr]

On Wednesday 14 September 2016 23:02:08 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 August 2016 09:56:07 Pali RohÃr wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hi! Can you clarify above? Or tell me what is wrong?
> 
> Hans already acked this series, but if there are some problems I can try 
> to fix them...
> 

PING

-- 
Pali RohÃr
pali.rohar@xxxxxxxxx