[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121115185522.GA4077@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:55:23 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Alexandra Chin <alexandra.chin@...synaptics.com>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
Mahesh Srinivasan <msrinivasan@...aptics.com>,
Alex Chang <alex.chang@...synaptics.com>,
Scott Lin <scott.lin@...synaptics.com>,
Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@...aptics.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] staging: ste_rmi4: merge into the main kernel tree
Hi Linus,
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 06:41:26PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
> <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > In this case you need to enumerate the benefits of this driver over
> > unified driver and show why the unified driver can't be fixed.
>
> The benefit is that the ugliness in
> drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/board-mop500-u8500uib-rmi4.c
> can be avoided, as today we're unable to pass the compulsory
> platform data in any sane way. I'm being told that this weak symbol
> override actually does not really work... especially if there are more
> than 1 I2C device on the bus :-P
I am confused as to why this would be a benefit of ste_rmi4 over full
RMI4 implementation from Christopher's group?
I think what we really need is to accelerate work on the full driver so
it is in mainline in 3.9ish.
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists