[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <00f901d5143f$f5ea8420$e1bf8c60$@emc.com.tw>
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 11:55:01 +0800
From: 廖崇榮 <kt.liao@....com.tw>
To: "'Benjamin Tissoires'" <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>,
"'Dmitry Torokhov'" <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"'Rob Herring'" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"'Aaron Ma'" <aaron.ma@...onical.com>,
"'Hans de Goede'" <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: "'open list:HID CORE LAYER'" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"'lkml'" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 08/10] Input: elan_i2c - export true width/height
Hi
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Tissoires [mailto:benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com]
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2019 5:37 PM
To: Dmitry Torokhov; KT Liao; Rob Herring; Aaron Ma; Hans de Goede
Cc: open list:HID CORE LAYER; lkml; devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] Input: elan_i2c - export true width/height
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> The width/height is actually in the same unit than X and Y. So we
> should not tamper the data, but just set the proper resolution, so
> that userspace can correctly detect which touch is a palm or a finger.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com>
>
> --
>
> new in v2
> ---
> drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 11 ++++-------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> index 7ff044c6cd11..6f4feedb7765 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,6 @@
> #define DRIVER_NAME "elan_i2c"
> #define ELAN_VENDOR_ID 0x04f3
> #define ETP_MAX_PRESSURE 255
> -#define ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE 90
> #define ETP_FINGER_WIDTH 15
> #define ETP_RETRY_COUNT 3
>
> @@ -915,12 +914,8 @@ static void elan_report_contact(struct elan_tp_data *data,
> return;
> }
>
> - /*
> - * To avoid treating large finger as palm, let's reduce the
> - * width x and y per trace.
> - */
> - area_x = mk_x * (data->width_x - ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE);
> - area_y = mk_y * (data->width_y - ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE);
> + area_x = mk_x * data->width_x;
> + area_y = mk_y * data->width_y;
>
> major = max(area_x, area_y);
> minor = min(area_x, area_y); @@ -1123,8 +1118,10 @@
> static int elan_setup_input_device(struct elan_tp_data *data)
> ETP_MAX_PRESSURE, 0, 0);
> input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, 0,
> ETP_FINGER_WIDTH * max_width, 0, 0);
> + input_abs_set_res(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, data->x_res);
> input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MINOR, 0,
> ETP_FINGER_WIDTH * min_width, 0, 0);
> + input_abs_set_res(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MINOR, data->y_res);
I had a chat with Peter on Wednesday, and he mentioned that this is dangerous as Major/Minor are max/min of the width and height. And given that we might have 2 different resolutions, we would need to do some computation in the kernel to ensure the data is correct with respect to the resolution.
TL;DR: I don't think we should export the resolution there :(
KT, should I drop the patch entirely, or is there a strong argument for keeping the ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE around?
I suggest you apply the patch, I have no idea why ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE existed.
Our FW team know nothing about ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE ether.
The only side effect will happen on Chromebook because such computation have stayed in ChromeOS' kernel for four years.
Chrome's finger/palm threshold may be different from other Linux distribution.
We will discuss it with Google once the patch picked by chrome and cause something wrong.
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> data->input = input;
>
> --
> 2.21.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists