Hi,
Something went wrong with your subject line, it also includes the further
commit message lines and the signed off line ..
Origianl -> Original
fomation .. Do you mean information ?
On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 07:11:41PM +0800, KT Liao wrote:
>
> ---
> drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> index 65c9de3..14ab5ba 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c
> @@ -1398,6 +1398,10 @@ static bool elantech_is_signature_valid(const unsigned
> char *param)
> param[2] < 40)
> return true;
>
> + /* hw_version 0x0F does not need to check rate alose*/
Drop the word also:
/* hw_version 0x0F does not need to check rate */
> + if ((param[0] & 0x0f) == 0x0f)
> + return true;
> +
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(rates); i++)
> if (param[2] == rates[i])
> return false;
> @@ -1576,7 +1580,7 @@ static const struct dmi_system_id no_hw_res_dmi_table[]
> = {
> /*
> * determine hardware version and set some properties according to it.
> */
> -static int elantech_set_properties(struct elantech_data *etd)
> +static int elantech_set_properties(struct elantech_data *etd, struct psmouse
> *psmouse)
Isn't the line too long for this one ?
> {
> /* This represents the version of IC body. */
> int ver = (etd->fw_version & 0x0f0000) >> 16;
> @@ -1593,14 +1597,14 @@ static int elantech_set_properties(struct
> elantech_data *etd)
> case 5:
> etd->hw_version = 3;
> break;
> - case 6 ... 14:
> + case 6 ... 15:
> etd->hw_version = 4;
> break;
> default:
> return -1;
> }
> }
Remove this tab on a line alone you added below ..
> -
> +
> /* decide which send_cmd we're gonna use early */
> etd->send_cmd = etd->hw_version >= 3 ? elantech_send_cmd :
> synaptics_send_cmd;
I would propose to place the lines below (up to the end of function
elantech_set_properties) in elantech_init instead of elantech_set_properties.
> @@ -1634,6 +1638,22 @@ static int elantech_set_properties(struct
> elantech_data *etd)
> /* Enable real hardware resolution on hw_version 3 ? */
> etd->set_hw_resolution = !dmi_check_system(no_hw_res_dmi_table);
>
> + /*if ver == 15 and info_pattern == 0x01, it is ELAN new pattern
> + *which support a command for extend IC_body/FW_Version reading
> + */
> + etd->info_pattern = etd->fw_version & 0xFF;
> + if (ver == 0x0F && etd->info_pattern == 0x01) {
I really appreciate the message that is given in the comment.
Why would you store the lowest byte of fw_version once more as an int .. and
use it only once at exactly the next line ..
Alternatives I see are:
1) Merge the two lines (so there is no info_pattern anymore)
2) Use a local variable info_pattern to store it intermediately
3) Have some macro that basically takes the lowest byte (I can't immediately
find a good example for this one)
> + if (etd->send_cmd(psmouse, ETP_ICBODY_QUERY, etd->icbody)) {
> + psmouse_err(psmouse, "failed to query icbody data\n");
> + return -1;
> + }
> + psmouse_info(psmouse,
> + "Elan ICBODY query result %02x, %02x, %02x\n",
> + etd->icbody[0], etd->icbody[1], etd->icbody[2]);
> + etd->fw_version &= 0xFFFF00;
> + etd->fw_version |= etd->icbody[2];
Brr, this throws away information. Is icbody2 really meant to replace bottom
byte of
fw_version ? I see no benefit of doing this ! I would propose to drop the above
2 lines
that alter fw_version.
> + }
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1667,7 +1687,7 @@ int elantech_init(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> }
> etd->fw_version = (param[0] << 16) | (param[1] << 8) | param[2];
>
> - if (elantech_set_properties(etd)) {
> + if (elantech_set_properties(etd, psmouse)) {
When those lines are moved to elantech_init, you don't need to add the psmouse
paramater.
> psmouse_err(psmouse, "unknown hardware version, aborting...\n");
> goto init_fail;
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h
> index e1cbf40..708ad85 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h
> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> #define ETP_CAPABILITIES_QUERY 0x02
> #define ETP_SAMPLE_QUERY 0x03
> #define ETP_RESOLUTION_QUERY 0x04
> +#define ETP_ICBODY_QUERY 0x05
>
> /*
> * Command values for register reading or writing
> @@ -130,6 +131,7 @@ struct elantech_data {
> unsigned char debug;
> unsigned char capabilities[3];
> unsigned char samples[3];
> + unsigned char icbody[3];
> bool paritycheck;
> bool jumpy_cursor;
> bool reports_pressure;
> @@ -140,6 +142,7 @@ struct elantech_data {
> unsigned int single_finger_reports;
> unsigned int y_max;
> unsigned int width;
> + unsigned int info_pattern;
So I would propose to remove this one.
> struct finger_pos mt[ETP_MAX_FINGERS];
> unsigned char parity[256];
> int (*send_cmd)(struct psmouse *psmouse, unsigned char c, unsigned char
> *param);
> --
> 2.7.4
Kind regards,
Ulrik
