Re: [PATCH 09/12] Input: synaptics - add image sensor support

Dmitry Torokhov
2011-07-06T20:01:04Z

On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 09:31:20PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> > > I believe there is a strong userspace assumption that BTN_TOOL_* has
> > > no meaning for real MT devices. Rightfully so, IMO. Hence, I think
> > > semi-mt needs to be used here as well.
> >
> > I think we need to adjust userspace to pay attention to BTN_TOOL_* for
> > MT-B too so that if number of slots advertised does not match
> > BTN_TOOL_* capabilities that means that the device does not privide
> > tracking data for all contacts.
>
> Well, it is possible, but it is a great deal more complex than just
> looking at what the slots contain. At least we should all be able to
> agree that MT-B is sufficient for any "proper" MT device.
>
> > Luckily this should be backward-compatible (i.e. older userspace will
> > ignore "extended" fingercounts, newer will pay attention to it).
>
> OTOH, letting semi-mt engulf all devices which requires the use of
> BTN_TOOL_* for finger count makes it easier to differentiate between
> various userspace support levels. "This app supports pure MT-B only",
> etc.

Do app writers really want to exclude semi-MT devices even though they
might be usable? I can see wanting to support only MT-B protocol (as opposed
to chatty MT-A) but if semi-MT stream is usable why not use it?

>
> > > > This is the best option in my opinion. We will present 2 finger position
> > > > data plus extended finger count.
> > >
> > > We never did put all the details of the bounding box coordinates in
> > > writing, so perhaps this is an opportunity to both fix that and extend
> > > usability to the case so described. The only question is whether there
> > > are applications out there which now assume min/max instead of contact
> > > positions. If anyone knows, please speak up. :-) Otherwise, I am very
> > > much for Daniel's case C, with Dmitry's modification.
> > >
> > > In short: Use the semi-MT property, and send two suitable fingers
> > > along with it.
> >
> > Umm... but it is my understanding that 2 fingers will provide real
> > tracking data, not bounding box, so why would we set semi-MT?
>
> To indicate that a) the two positions may not represent true fingers
> but a bounding box, and b) the contact count is determined by
> BTN_TOOL_*.
>
> True, there is no way to distinguish between the real-fingers and
> bounding-box cases here

And that is the problem.

> (that is why I suggested another binary value
> in a previous mail), but without semi-mt, there is no way to know a
> priori if special logic is needed for the number of fingers.

This should be pretty straightforward:

num_fingers = calc_fingers_from_btn_tool(device); // via EVIOCGKEY
num_slots = get_number_of_slots(device); // EVIOCGABS
num_untracked_contacts = max(num_fingers - num_slots, 0);

>
> > Maybe we have different notions of what semi-MT property conveys? For me
> > semi-MT indicates that the device provides 2 coordinates for bounding
> > box. However if semi-MT is not set does not mean that the device
> > provides true tracking for all contacts, but only for advertised slots.
> > There still may be additional data transmitted.
>
> Yes, it seems we do have different assumptions here. The more reason
> to document it further. :-)

I'll take patches ;)

>
> To me, it seems we do need a little bit of extra information to
> determine this new type of device.

I think we already have all we need (see above).

Thanks.

--
Dmitry