[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0f24b5e-5fa4-d178-2bc4-c39a1d084aef@mentor.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:21:32 +0900
From: "Wang, Jiada" <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: <nick@...anahar.org>, <jikos@...nel.org>,
<benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>, <bsz@...ihalf.com>,
<linux-input@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<erosca@...adit-jv.com>, <Andrew_Gabbasov@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 00/56] atmel_mxt_ts misc
Hello All
I am thinking it doesn't make sense to keep the series
with such a big chunk of patches,
I will divide the series into several small series
Thanks,
Jiada
On 2020/07/08 22:05, Wang, Jiada wrote:
> Hello Dmitry
>
> I am working on refining this series,
> regarding your comment about drop changes related to
> upload firmware and config during boot.
>
> I found currently only config is uploaded during every boot.
> but firmware is only uploaded when userspace asks to do so via
> sysfs interface.
>
> Could you help to confirm if this is the case?
>
> Thanks,
> Jiada
>
> On 2020/06/25 22:50, Wang, Jiada wrote:
>> Hello Dmitry
>>
>> sorry for the delay,
>>
>> On 2020/05/27 15:43, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> Hi Jiada,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:56:00PM -0700, Jiada Wang wrote:
>>>> This patch-set forward ports Nick Dyer's work in ndyer/linux github
>>>> repository as long as some other features and fixes
>>>
>>> Sorry for ignoring the series for quite a while. I guess my biggest
>>> issue with the series is that quite a bit of patches are trying to
>>> handle the fallout from a very unfortunate design decision in the
>>> driver: the fact that it attempts to automatically upload firmware and
>>> config on every boot/probe. This design was done at my urging because I
>>> did not have access to the technical documentation and did not realize
>>> that the controller has non-volatile memory for both firmware and
>>> configuration. We should only attempt to automatically load firmware
>>> where device does not have non-volatile memory and is unable function
>>> otherwise, in all other cases we better leave it to userspace to decide
>>> whether to execute firmware update and when. The kernel should only
>>> provide facilities so that userspace can initiate firmware update. This
>>> design has worked well for Chrome OS for many years (it used Atmel
>>> controllers in several products), and I would like to bring it to the
>>> mainline.
>>
>> I agree with you, I will review the patch-set,
>> and only pick these not related to firmware/cfg upload
>>
>> Thanks,
>> jiada
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists