Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On 2/16/07, Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> > On Thursday 15 February 2007 20:30, Andrew Morton wrote: >> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:55:29 -0500 >> >> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> [...] >> >> Perhaps a nicer implementation would be to have a separate .c file >> for each >> >> variant. >> >> >> > >> > Having completely separate sub-drivers is very hard because of very >> delicate >> > PS/2 protocol probing.... >> > >> > What do you think about patch below? It somewhat reduces #ifdef >> clutter in main >> > module moving it in .h files... >> > >> >> Normally, I'm a fan of that sort of thing. However, in this case, I >> think it makes sense to have the #ifdefs right in the probe function; at >> least for me, it makes it easier to understand what's going on. The >> synaptics stuff is especially tricky; with a cursory glance over the >> code, one might assume that all the synaptics functions disappear when >> CONFIG_MOUSE_PS2_SYNAPTICS is unset. However, if the #ifdef's are in >> the probe function, it's pretty clear that some synaptics functions >> still get called even when CONFIG_MOUSE_PS2_SYNAPTICS is unset. >> > > Thit is a valid point but #ifdef maze in the middle of already messy > psmouse-extensions() is too much for me. I guess I will just add a > comment explaining that synaptics probing is really special. >
I haven't seen patches in your tree; are you waiting for me to do the cleanups and resend? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/