Hello Nick,

On 12/16/2014 06:07 PM, Nick Dyer wrote:

On 16/12/14 16:49, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:

quoted

Awesome, what do you think about the change to have a common input device
initialization function that I squashed in your original patch?
mxt_initialize_t100_input_device() and mxt_initialize_t9_input_device()
are very similar so I think that is a sensible refactoring as well.

If you agree with the change I can post it on top of your patch once it
lands in mainline.

I had been keeping them separate on the basis that we don't want changes to
support new T100 features to cause regressions in the old T9 handling. But
there is a fair amount of duplication as you say, probably worth addressing.

Yeah but if there are regressions I think we should address those instead of
duplicating code, to make the driver more maintainable in the long term.

FWIW I have a queue of stuff that might be considered higher priority, the
next 15-patch set would be up to "add regulator control support":
https://github.com/ndyer/linux/compare/dtor:next...for-dtor

It does cause me some issues to merge upstream refactorings past that lot...

Sure, I can hold any refactoring patches until you have pushed all your
queue so you don't have to resolve conflicts. 

Just let me know when is a good time to push the refactoring changes.

Thanks a lot for your help and best regards,
Javier