From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH] appletouch: Improved finger detection Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 04:29:23 -0700 Message-ID: <200906020429.24264.dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> References: <3AC3E247-D85C-4D8A-A73B-34677C32C2D5@freedesktop.org> <20090508025839.GC30616@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pz0-f177.google.com ([209.85.222.177]:65509 "EHLO mail-pz0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752345AbZFBNrU (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jun 2009 09:47:20 -0400 Received: by pzk7 with SMTP id 7so6660822pzk.33 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 06:47:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Huddleston Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net, jasonparekh@gmail.com On Monday 01 June 2009 00:35:53 Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > On May 7, 2009, at 19:59, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > HI Jeremy, > > > > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 12:10:34PM -0700, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: > >> The appletouch driver is prone to reporting multiple fingers when > >> only > >> one is > >> pressing. The appletouch driver queries an array of pressure sensors > >> and > >> counts local maxima in pressure to determine the number of > >> fingers. It > >> just > >> does this on the raw values, so a data stream like: > >> > >> 0 100 250 300 299 300 250 100 0 > >> > >> actually registers as 2 fingers. > >> > >> This patch updates the logic to ignore small dips in pressure that > >> are > >> less > >> than the threshold. > > > > Does it still detect 2 fingers as 2 fingers when they are held > > together? > > I just wanted to follow up on this patch[1], since I haven't seen any > movement. It's fairly trivial and I've been using it for the past > month with great success (yes, it still detects 2 fingers properly). > Is there hope that this change can get merged soon? > Gah, I was sure I applied it to 'next'. Sorry about that, I will make sure it gets into .31. -- Dmitry