Hi JJ
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 14:06 +0800, Wanlong Gao wrote:

On 08/18/2011 02:01 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Wanlong Gao[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

On 08/18/2011 01:34 PM, Daniel Kurtz wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Wanlong Gao[off-list ref]
  wrote:

quoted

On 08/18/2011 01:26 PM, JJ Ding wrote:

quoted

Hi Wanlong Gao,

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 11:01:52 +0800, Wanlong
Gao[off-list ref]
  wrote:

quoted

On 08/18/2011 09:57 AM, JJ Ding wrote:

quoted

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<redacted>
---
   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

I prefer this way. 

quoted

quoted

quoted

:)

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

Yeah, It makes sense.

Thanks
-Wanlong Gao

Thanks
-TomLin