On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:28 PM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The width/height is actually in the same unit than X and Y. So we should > not tamper the data, but just set the proper resolution, so that userspace > can correctly detect which touch is a palm or a finger. > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > > new in v2 > --- > drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c | 11 ++++------- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c > index 7ff044c6cd11..6f4feedb7765 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c > +++ b/drivers/input/mouse/elan_i2c_core.c > @@ -45,7 +45,6 @@ > #define DRIVER_NAME "elan_i2c" > #define ELAN_VENDOR_ID 0x04f3 > #define ETP_MAX_PRESSURE 255 > -#define ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE 90 > #define ETP_FINGER_WIDTH 15 > #define ETP_RETRY_COUNT 3 > > @@ -915,12 +914,8 @@ static void elan_report_contact(struct elan_tp_data *data, > return; > } > > - /* > - * To avoid treating large finger as palm, let's reduce the > - * width x and y per trace. > - */ > - area_x = mk_x * (data->width_x - ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE); > - area_y = mk_y * (data->width_y - ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE); > + area_x = mk_x * data->width_x; > + area_y = mk_y * data->width_y; > > major = max(area_x, area_y); > minor = min(area_x, area_y); > @@ -1123,8 +1118,10 @@ static int elan_setup_input_device(struct elan_tp_data *data) > ETP_MAX_PRESSURE, 0, 0); > input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, 0, > ETP_FINGER_WIDTH * max_width, 0, 0); > + input_abs_set_res(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR, data->x_res); > input_set_abs_params(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MINOR, 0, > ETP_FINGER_WIDTH * min_width, 0, 0); > + input_abs_set_res(input, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MINOR, data->y_res); I had a chat with Peter on Wednesday, and he mentioned that this is dangerous as Major/Minor are max/min of the width and height. And given that we might have 2 different resolutions, we would need to do some computation in the kernel to ensure the data is correct with respect to the resolution. TL;DR: I don't think we should export the resolution there :( KT, should I drop the patch entirely, or is there a strong argument for keeping the ETP_FWIDTH_REDUCE around? Cheers, Benjamin > > data->input = input; > > -- > 2.21.0 >
