mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@bitmath.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Chase Douglas <chase.douglas@canonical.com>,
	Chris Bagwell <chris@cnpbagwell.com>,
	Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>,
	linux-input <linux-input@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Alternative approach to MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2010 11:26:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org> (raw)

>> 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?

> 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


             reply	other threads:[~2010-12-15 10:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-12-15 10:26 Henrik Rydberg [this message]
2010-12-15 17:40 ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-15 19:36   ` Henrik Rydberg
2010-12-15 21:13     ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-16 14:41       ` Henrik Rydberg
2010-12-15 20:41   ` Chris Bagwell
2010-12-15 21:08     ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-16 14:35       ` Henrik Rydberg
2010-12-16  0:19 ` Peter Hutterer
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-12-14 21:21 Chase Douglas
2010-12-14 21:38 ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-14 22:12 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-12-15  0:21   ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-15  1:37     ` Henrik Rydberg
2010-12-15  7:25       ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-12-15 17:31         ` Chase Douglas
2010-12-15 20:25           ` Chris Bagwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4D0897F3.7040500@bitmath.org \
    --to=rydberg@bitmath.org \
    --cc=chase.douglas@canonical.com \
    --cc=chris@cnpbagwell.com \
    --cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter.hutterer@who-t.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome