Re: [RPC] OLPC tablet input driver.

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

On 8/29/06, Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:53:17AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 8/29/06, Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com> wrote:
> > >The OLPC will ship with a somewhat unique input device made by ALPS,
> > >connected via PS/2 and speaking a protocol only loosely based on that
> > >spoken by other ALPS devices.
> > >
> >
> > Do you have a formal programming spec for it?
>
> Not that I can currently distribute.
>
> Converting to html, trimming out hardware detail, and feeding it through
> channels for ALPS to say that they are comfortable with the amount of
> data being released is on my todo list, but behind a few other things.

I see. Well, if you have a decent contacts in ALPS could you ask them
if they could release any information on their other hardware?

> >
> > >4: Technical/policy: Buttons are currently sent to both of the input
> > >devices we generate, I don't see any way to avoid this that is not a
> > >policy decision on which buttons belong to which device, but I'm open to
> > >suggestions.
> > >
> >
> > Is it not known how actual hardware wired?
>
> Hardware is wired with one device, which is quite wide.  The entire
> width can be accessed via the PT sensor, and the middle 1/3rd with the
> GS sensor.
>
> I believe that the buttons will be one on each side, though I'm not
> positive, and the PT data, the GS data, and the button data all arrive
> in the same packet.
>
> So really there is no 'right' way from the kernel driver's point of
> view, the buttons belong equally to both.
>
> The kernel driver that this will be matched with will probably leave it
> as a user configuration setting as to which one it will throw button
> presses away for.

OK.

>
> > >+       dev2->name = "OLPC OLPC GlideSensor";
> >
> > "OLPC OLPC"?
>
> To match the first one, with a protocol name of OLPC and a vendor of
> OLPC we end up with 'OLPC OLPC' for the first one, this is, IMHO, rather
> suboptimal, but I'm not sure what else to do here.
>

Should not vendor be still ALPS?

-- 
Dmitry