[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D0A23C6.7000308@bitmath.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 15:35:50 +0100
From: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>
To: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>
CC: Chris Bagwell <chris@...bagwell.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.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
>
> I do think that MT is complex enough that related documentation should
> be in multi-touch-protocol.txt, though. Anywhere I discussed MT in
> evdev-codes.txt I referred the reader to the other file. Henrik, does
> that sound good to you?
Yep, thanks.
>> I think it will be invaluable to document this stuff for driver
>> writers and apps but I'm not sure yet what level needs to be enforced.
>
> That's the biggest issue I see right now. Do we want black and white
> specificity? For example, using terms like "must" and "may not" etc. Or
> do we want the document to merely hold best practices while not
> proscribing exact details? I think even with exact details we can loosen
> them if needed, but that has its own can of worms.
It will most likely need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
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