From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Henrik Rydberg" Subject: Re: [RFC] Port of hid-egalax to the unified hid-multitouch driver Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 14:29:25 +0100 Message-ID: <20110308132925.GA19098@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <1299417883.9645.494.camel@itzy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net ([80.76.149.213]:34935 "EHLO ch-smtp02.sth.basefarm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754416Ab1CHN1S (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2011 08:27:18 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: Benjamin Tissoires , Richard Nauber , linux-input@vger.kernel.org > > This reminds me that we have to switch the other drivers to > > hid-multitouch too. > > That would be nice. I don't see this really being done for the upcoming > merge window, right Benjamin? There has been no activity in that direction here either... > > Actually, I was not in favor of porting this driver into hid-multitouch. > > eGalax has two differents protocols: one for resistive technology (which > > is compatible with hid-multitouch in its current form), and one for > > capacitive technology (which requires the "corrupt packet length" > > quirk). > > > > Apparently, according to the kernel logs the Samsung MB30 is a resistive > > technology (correct me if I'm wrong). This means that we also need > > testings for the capacitive one. > > > > I'll let the community decide whether we should include this in > > hid-multitouch. Henrik, Jiri, any idea? > > Either directly hid-multitouch, or hid-multitouch-capacitive sub-module > should be fine. Maybe it is obvious already, but I think the patch is great. There is really no reason to split the driver - in particular given that the manufacturer has ensured similar behavior from both types. Thanks, Henrik