[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101216001931.GB4952@salty.local>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:19:32 +1000
From: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@...-t.net>
To: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@...onical.com>,
Chris Bagwell <chris@...bagwell.com>,
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
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:26:59AM +0100, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >> 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?
sounds good to me, thanks.
Cheers,
Peter
> > 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