From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Henrik Rydberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alternative approach to MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:26:59 +0100 Message-ID: <4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from csmtp3.one.com ([91.198.169.23]:36743 "EHLO csmtp3.one.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752630Ab0LOKfu (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:35:50 -0500 Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Chase Douglas , Chris Bagwell , Peter Hutterer , linux-input , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" >> 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