From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1766826AbXDSQCX (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:02:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1766828AbXDSQCX (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:02:23 -0400 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.230]:22934 "EHLO wr-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1766826AbXDSQCW (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:02:22 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r8E5hsP3gHylQryVLjULpgEEt342wEMQpRRz+bLQNZsZST8MrO2PHtCT2D035WxUJiKWLP4xvdHv0SVD/troAyUriLRo+q61MKHgzPdWTY1rESRprMSZWf24BZCAT7ceSc++Jmw+riRiQRrXvZUAKEixPJlcz3GtiVMdbhxJ8dg= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:02:21 -0400 From: "Dmitry Torokhov" To: "Jiri Slaby" Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] Input: ff, add FF_RAW effect Cc: "johann deneux" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stenyak@gmail.com, linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz In-Reply-To: <46278CDD.2000007@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <210731960111436322@karneval.cz> <462688AB.4060707@gmail.com> <38b3b7c0704182125q1928c5barad21ed603088ab04@mail.gmail.com> <200704190058.11625.dtor@insightbb.com> <46278CDD.2000007@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/19/07, Jiri Slaby wrote: > Dmitry Torokhov napsal(a): > > I have been thinking about this and I don't think that exporting motor > > data is a good idea, at least not in case of Phantom driver. The fact > > that there are 3 motors is a hardware implementation detail and it > > is not interesting for general application. > > Ok, so what about torques (despite it's still something like FF_RAW or motor > descriptor)? It seems not to be so bad called effect name -- not only > phantom uses torques on motors as an unit of force, for example I get this > by quick googling: > http://www.caip.rutgers.edu/~bouzit/lrp/glove.html > They use there some motors with 14 torque values too, so the phantom isn't > the only device which uses this approach. > > > My understanding that the end result of controlling these 3 motors > > Actually there is also a version with 6 motors :). > > > is a force vector (I don't know if there is such english term, this > > is a literal translation from russian) applied to user's hand. > > Better say torques vector. You must compute a torque for each place from the > 3d (or bigger) vector of forces in different way for each device that exists > -- this means forces are not independent unit, torques are in the meaning of > layer which doesn't care about what is connected above and below it. > > > If we are interested in using FF API we need to come up with a way > > to express this effect without exposing implementation details of > > one particular device. > > Still, torques are better named raw/motor values, which goes to the device > and I'm sceptic about inventing something class-better than this. > Well, I guess we need to make a decision whether moving this kind of devices into a force feedback layer is possible or whether every device needs to have an application specifically tailored to that particular device. If we say that it is feasible to plug a device into FF layer then we must not expose hardware implementation details. That means that device-sepcific translation between 3d vector of forces into motor torques must be done by the driver itself. For devices that require tailored application (for example that glove - I am not sure how a generic application could control it) old phantom way of controlling via ioctl will suffice. The device may still use input layer to report back coordinates. -- Dmitry