linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] 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 14:01:42 +0800
From:	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>
To:	gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com
Cc:	JJ Ding <jj_ding@....com.tw>, 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 6/6] Input: elantech - add v3 hardware support

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 01:34 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Wanlong Gao<gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08/18/2011 01:26 PM, JJ Ding wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Wanlong Gao,
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:01:52 +0800, Wanlong
>>>> Gao<gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com>
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/18/2011 09:57 AM, JJ Ding wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v3 hardware's packet format is almost identical to v2 (one/three
>>>>>> finger
>>>>>> touch),
>>>>>> except when sensing two finger touch, the hardware sends 12 bytes of
>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: JJ Ding<jj_ding@....com.tw>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   Documentation/input/elantech.txt |  104 ++++++++++++++++--
>>>>>>   drivers/input/mouse/elantech.c   |  218
>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>>>>>>   drivers/input/mouse/elantech.h   |   11 ++
>>>>>>   3 files changed, 303 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +static int determine_packet_v3(struct psmouse *psmouse)
>>>>>
>>>>> elantech_check_parity_v1
>>>>> packet_simple_check_v2
>>>>> determine_packet_v3
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not consistent them?
>>>>
>>>> OK, how do these names sound to you?
>>>>
>>>> elantech_check_parity_v1
>>>> elantech_packet_check_v2
>>>> elantech_packet_check_v3
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> jj
>>>
>>> Yeah, sounds perfectly.
>>
>> Or just:
>>
>> elantech_packet_check_v1
>> elantech_packet_check_v2
>> elantech_packet_check_v3
>>
>> :)
>
> Hmm... maybe they can go into an elantech_packet_check()?
> like:
> case 1:
>        ...
> case 2:
>        ...
> What do you think? ;)
>
> Thanks
> -Wanlong Gao

Since we've already parsed the hardware type at this point, it seems
inefficient to parse it again inside another function.
I would prefer individual functions.

Thanks,
-Daniel
--
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/