On Friday 08 July 2016 23:37:54 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 June 2016 13:27:30 Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Monday 20 June 2016 17:31:13 Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > Hi Pali,
> > > > 
> > > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +0200, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > > This patch series cleanup usage of alps_model_data table.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pali Rohár (5):
> > > > >   Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V6 out of alps_model_data
> > > > >   table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of
> > > > >   alps_model_data table Input: alps - move ALPS_PROTO_V1 out
> > > > >   of alps_model_data table Input: alps - warn about
> > > > >   unsupported ALPS V9 touchpad Input: alps - cleanup
> > > > >   ALPS_PROTO_V2 detection
> > > > 
> > > > Frankly, I do not quite like this series. The rule of thumb we
> > > > had: if we can use e7 data to identify the device it should go
> > > > into table, if we need to have more elaborate logic - then
> > > > implement it in __alps_indentify(). I would understand if we
> > > > got rid of the table completely, but we didn't.
> > > 
> > > Hans and me agreed that alps_model_data array is for old
> > > touchpads defined as quirks table. So in this patch series I'm
> > > trying to eliminate using that array. And it is possible for V1,
> > > V4 and V6 touchpads because each protocol has only one entry in
> > > table. And last user is just V2 protocol which is I think
> > > better...
> > > 
> > > So this is my motivation for this patch series.
> > 
> > Any suggestion how to rework it? And any agreement if we should
> > remove V1/V4/V6 from alps_model_date or let it stay here?
> 
> As I mentioned below I am happy with removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and
> subsequently command_mode_resp from alps_model_info, while leaving
> the rest in the table.

Now I'm not fully understand what you mean. This patch series does not 
remove ALPS_PROTO_V4 support. Just move ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of 
alps_model_info table structure (same as for V1 and V6). Field 
command_mode_resp is removed from alps_model_info, but that can be done 
only because command_mode_resp is used by ALPS_PROTO_V4 (which is moved 
out of alps_model_info).

So I do not understand why do you think moving ALPS_PROTO_V4 out of 
alps_model_info is good, but ALPS_PROTO_V6 or ALPS_PROTO_V1 not.

> Thanks.
> 
> > > > I think the patch removing ALPS_PROTO_V4 and subsequent patch
> > > > removing command_mode_resp from alps_model_info are good, the
> > > > rest are not so much.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks.

-- 
Pali Rohár
pali.rohar@gmail.com