From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Hutterer Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alternative approach to MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 10:19:32 +1000 Message-ID: <20101216001931.GB4952@salty.local> References: <4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from leo.clearchain.com ([199.73.29.74]:33962 "EHLO mail.clearchain.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750910Ab0LPATq (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Dec 2010 19:19:46 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Henrik Rydberg Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Chase Douglas , Chris Bagwell , linux-input , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" 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 >