Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-15 Thread PaweÅ Sikora
On Monday 14 of March 2005 06:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: > Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the > sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I > also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. > > It patches against 2.6.11 and

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-15 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:49:25 +0100, PaweÅ Sikora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 14 of March 2005 06:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: > > Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the > > sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I > > also

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-15 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:49:25 +0100, Pawe Sikora [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 of March 2005 06:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-15 Thread Pawe Sikora
On Monday 14 of March 2005 06:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. It patches against 2.6.11 and

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:40:22 -0500, Stephen Evanchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:19:56 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How much does it interpret the stream in non-transparent mode? Are > > commands also passed through in soft transparent mode? > > > >

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:19:56 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How much does it interpret the stream in non-transparent mode? Are > commands also passed through in soft transparent mode? > > I'm asking because we might want to implement a passthrough port > similarly to what the

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:01:23AM -0500, Stephen Evanchik wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > +/* > > > + * Mode manipulation > > > + */ > > > +#define TP_SET_SOFT_TRANS (0x4E) /* Set mode */ > > > +#define TP_CANCEL_SOFT_TRANS (0xB9) /*

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > +/* > > + * Mode manipulation > > + */ > > +#define TP_SET_SOFT_TRANS (0x4E) /* Set mode */ > > +#define TP_CANCEL_SOFT_TRANS (0xB9) /* Cancel mode */ > > +#define TP_SET_HARD_TRANS (0x45) /* Mode can only be set */

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:02:13AM -0500, Stephen Evanchik wrote: > Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the > sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I > also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. > > It patches against

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:02:13AM -0500, Stephen Evanchik wrote: Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. It patches against 2.6.11

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +/* + * Mode manipulation + */ +#define TP_SET_SOFT_TRANS (0x4E) /* Set mode */ +#define TP_CANCEL_SOFT_TRANS (0xB9) /* Cancel mode */ +#define TP_SET_HARD_TRANS (0x45) /* Mode can only be set */ What

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Vojtech Pavlik
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:01:23AM -0500, Stephen Evanchik wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:19:49 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +/* + * Mode manipulation + */ +#define TP_SET_SOFT_TRANS (0x4E) /* Set mode */ +#define TP_CANCEL_SOFT_TRANS (0xB9) /* Cancel mode */

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Stephen Evanchik
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:19:56 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much does it interpret the stream in non-transparent mode? Are commands also passed through in soft transparent mode? I'm asking because we might want to implement a passthrough port similarly to what the

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-14 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:40:22 -0500, Stephen Evanchik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 13:19:56 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much does it interpret the stream in non-transparent mode? Are commands also passed through in soft transparent mode? I'm asking

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-13 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 14 March 2005 00:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: > Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the > sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I > also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. > > It patches against 2.6.11 and

[PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-13 Thread Stephen Evanchik
Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. It patches against 2.6.11 and 2.6.11.3 however I have not tested it with 2.6.11.3 . Any comments

[PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-13 Thread Stephen Evanchik
Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. It patches against 2.6.11 and 2.6.11.3 however I have not tested it with 2.6.11.3 . Any comments

Re: [PATCH 2.6.11] IBM TrackPoint support

2005-03-13 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Monday 14 March 2005 00:02, Stephen Evanchik wrote: Here's the latest patch for TracKPoint devices. I have changed the sysfs filenames to be more descriptive for commonly used attributes. I also implemented the set_properties flag for initialization. It patches against 2.6.11 and 2.6.11.3