[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:26:59 +0100
From: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
Chris Bagwell <chris@...bagwell.com>,
Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...-t.net>,
linux-input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alternative approach to MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE
>> Ping has touched upon this subject as well, from the pen & touch perspective.
>> Generally, some ABS axes are actually enumerations, for which we have no
>> direct abstraction. If we had a way to declare the used values for such
>> enumerations, it would resolve these and possibly other issues.
> I think that presence of pen/touch can be detected by having
> BTN_TOOL_PEN and BTN_TOOL_FINGER. However in this case the tool is
> finger, so I do not think we should introduce BTN_TOOL_ENVELOPE. Maybe
> this is another case where we should employ the proposed device flags?
Yes. Having something like INPUT_QUIRK_SEMI_MT might be enough, and we could
drop the whole MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE circus. Chase, Peter, Chris, would you be
comfortable with such a solution?
> Anyway, it looks like we have a few concerns with current
> MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE so I want to rewind my 'next' branch.
Yep. Should I also take the opportunity to sync from -rc1 instead, and fold the
cleanup patches into the appropriate places?
Thanks,
Henrik
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists