linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] input: mt: Document the MT event slot protocol (rev4)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTimQIIPiah962ar_TRZvJZpqCFvh-KLXxakbUHmZ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sun, 23 May 2010 16:47:47 -0700
From:	Ping Cheng <pinglinux@...il.com>
To:	Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se>
Cc:	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@...ia.com>,
	Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...-t.net>,
	Benjamin Tissoires <tissoire@...a.fr>,
	Stephane Chatty <chatty@...c.fr>,
	Rafi Rubin <rafi@...s.upenn.edu>,
	Michael Poole <mdpoole@...ilus.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] input: mt: Document the MT event slot protocol (rev4)

On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...omail.se> wrote:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> [...]
>>> +Protocol Usage
>>> +--------------
>>> +
>>> +Contact details are sent sequentially as separate packets of ABS_MT
>>> +events. Only the ABS_MT events are recognized as part of a contact
>>> +packet. Since these events are ignored by current single-touch (ST)
>>> +applications, the MT protocol can be implemented on top of the ST protocol
>>> +in an existing driver.
>>> +
>>> +Drivers for type A devices mark the end of a packet by calling the
>>
>> end?

Since Randy brought this question up, I feel the urge to say
something.  I know there are X drivers and clients using the type A
format so I am not suggesting that we need to change this format.

What I am thinking is that we only need one SYN_ call for both _MT_
and regular data combined, which is a call to input_sync() at the end
of the whole packet. The SYN_MT_ can be replaced by the following
example, which I think is more "client-friendly". This solution is
based on the fact that the major difference between type A and type B
is whether we need to filter the data or not:

ABS_MT_RANDOM 0
ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[0]
ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[0]
ABS_MT_ RANDOM 1
ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[1]
ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[1]
SYN_REPORT

input_set_abs_params(input_dev, ABS_MT_RANDOM, 0, 2, 0, 0);

would tell the clients that they can expect two random touches.

>>> +The end of a multi-touch transfer is marked by calling the usual
>>
>> The end method is done for Types A and B, right?
>
> How about this line instead?
>
> All drivers mark the end of a multi-touch transfer by calling the usual

If we use ABS_MT_RANDOM, there would be only one SYN_ event for the
whole packet at the end, regardless of what kind of data is included
before the SYN_ event.

Basically, ABS_MT_RANDOM indicates a non-filtered and non-tracked MT_
event; ABS_MT_SLOT indicates a filtered and tracked MT_ event/slot.

With all this said, I don't have a preference for type A since I do
not need it for my driver. Just to be active in the group if you
wonder if there is any positive rationale :).

Ping
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/