linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Aug 2011 13:38:16 +0800
From:	Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
To:	JJ Ding <jj_ding@....com.tw>
CC:	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Aaron Huang <aaron_huang@....com.tw>,
	Tom Lin <tom_lin@....com.tw>,
	Eric Piel <E.A.B.Piel@...elft.nl>,
	Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
	Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...l.unipv.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Input: elantech - clean up elantech_init

On 08/18/2011 01:35 PM, JJ Ding wrote:
> Hi Wanlong Gao, Daniel,
>
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:08:08 +0800, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>  wrote:
>> On 08/18/2011 11:04 AM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:57 AM, JJ Ding<jj_ding@....com.tw>   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?
>
> Thanks,
> jj

aha, maybe you can make the sysfs entry func to be noop, and mark it to 
be obsoleted, or just remove it?

Thanks
-Wanlong Gao

>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Kurtz<djkurtz@...omium.org>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks
>> Wanlong Gao
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> 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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/