Re: [PATCH 0/2] input: mt: Add EVIOC mechanism for MT slots

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:08:10AM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Le 27/05/2010 09:03, Dmitry Torokhov a écrit :
> >On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 08:59:35AM -0700, Ping Cheng wrote:
> >>On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Dmitry Torokhov
> >><dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:52:29PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >>>>Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>>>Hi Henrik,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 01:52:57PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> >>>>>>These patches are in response to the discussion about input state
> >>>>>>retrieval.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The current EVIOCGABS method does not work with MT slots.  These
> >>>>>>patches provides a mechanism where a slot is first selected via a call
> >>>>>>to EVIOCSABS, after which the corresponding MT events can be extracted
> >>>>>>with calls to EVIOCGABS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The symmetric operation, to set the MT state via EVIOCSABS, seems to
> >>>>>>violate input data integrity, and is therefore not implemented.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This looks sane, however the question remains - is there any users for
> >>>>>this data? Like I mentioned, I can see the need to fetch state of
> >>>>>switches and ranges of absolute axis, and even non-multitouch ABS values
> >>>>>(due to the fact that some input devices, like sliders, may stay in a
> >>>>>certain position for long periods of time), but I expect multitouch data
> >>>>>to be "refreshed" very quickly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Thanks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>There were some voices addressing this issue, and the patches are here,
> >>>>available for whomever to pick up. Drop them if you wish, I will not send them anew.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>I'll save them in my queue but will hold off applying until I hear
> >>>userspace folks requesting such functionality.
> >>
> >>Hi Dmitry,
> >>
> >>You do have a valid point - the (x,y) from a touch object would most
> >>likely change all the time. Even if the object itself is in a steady
> >>state on the digitizer, i.e., without any intentional movement, the
> >>electronic noise would most likely lead to some (x,y) changes. So, the
> >>chance that we need to retrieve (x,y) is rare.
> >>
> >>However, it is possibe that when X driver starts, an object was
> >>already on the digitizer. And the digitizer is of such a high quality
> >>:), it filtered all the noises so we can not locate the touch without
> >>a EVIOCGABS call.
> >>
> >>Plus, from a pure coding/development point of view, it is not a bad
> >>practice to provide the equivalent features for _MT_ support as we did
> >>for the existing input devices. At least, it doesn't hurt to make the
> >>support consistent across devices/tools (considering touch as a new
> >>input device/tool).
> >
> >Ping,
> >
> >I did not say that there was a problem with the patch, I agree with it.
> >However if no one using this - why should we bother? Will _you_ utilize
> >this functionality in Wacom X driver? If so let me know and I will merge
> >it.
> >
> 
> Hi Dmitry,
> 
> I'm the guy who submitted some patchs to enable multitouch in the
> xf86-input-evdev driver. And I think that I will use the MT_SLOTS as
> soon as they are available. It is much easier for the upper part to
> have this protocol instead of the protocol type A.
> 

This is not the question about slotted protocol (which is everyone
agrees is needed), the question is whether anyone will use EIVICGABS to
retrieve the initial MT values in case someone started touching the
device before X opened the corresponding /dev/input/eventX.

-- 
Dmitry
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html