linux-kernel - Re: Atmel updates to atmel_mxt

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]

Message-ID: <20130329164841.GA2230@polaris.bitmath.org>
Date:	Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:48:41 +0100
From:	"Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@...omail.se>
To:	Nick Dyer <nick.dyer@...ev.co.uk>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
	Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>,
	Alan.Bowens@...el.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, pmeerw@...erw.net,
	bleung@...omium.org, olofj@...omium.org
Subject: Re: Atmel updates to atmel_mxt_ts touch controller driver

Hi Nick,

> The following patches are a large series of updates in functionality to the
> atmel_mxt_ts touch driver. They apply cleanly to input/next.

I guess this is no longer true.

> These changes address some of the same issues that appear in the patchsets
> submitted by Daniel Kurtz and Peter Meerwald. However, they go much further in
> adding support for new objects, improving performance, and increasing
> reliability. They have been regularly regression tested against old and new
> chips which use the same protocol.
> 
> We also provide a set of user-space utilities as open source which are 
> available from github and work well with this driver:
>   https://github.com/atmel-maxtouch/obp-utils
> 
> Most of my focus in working on these changes has been to support Atmel's
> customers, who tend not to be using the mainline kernel. Unfortunately this 
> has generated somewhat of a backlog in getting these improvements into
> mainline. My current focus is to get these improvements upstream and I have
> time allocated to make any alterations as necessary. Since the scope of this
> patchset is so large any upstream delta tends to cause a big rebasing effort.
> I would suggest that I merge any useful improvements from the other patchsets
> to make a combined patchset.

Are you planning to submit a version for 3.9? If you do, please
consider sending a smaller set.

Thanks,
Henrik
--
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/