At Tue, 15 Dec 2009 00:25:18 -0800,
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 08:41:05AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:33:58 -0800,
> > Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 07:40:55AM +0100, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > > > At Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:26:28 -0800,
> > > > Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [1 <text/plain; us-ascii (7bit)>]
> > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 08:41:27PM -0700, Alex Chiang wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks, I did grab Takashi's patches and verify that they work
> > > > > > for me. I tested the separated patches, not the v2 combined
> > > > > > patch, although it doesn't make any difference based on visual
> > > > > > inspection of v2.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you want, you can add my:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tested-by: Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you very much for testing, however could you please try a slightly
> > > > > different patch below (I did not quite like that the original patch
> > > > > mangled device's capability field and how it was reusing 'middle' field
> > > > > for different things)? It should apply on top of patch that
> > > > > I am attaching. I hope I did not screw it up too much,
> > > >
> > > > I can't test the patch right now since I'm at home, but I'm afraid
> > > > it's a bit different behavior. Namely,
> > > >
> > > > > @@ -330,20 +339,52 @@ static void synaptics_parse_new_hw(unsigned char buf[],
> > > > > struct synaptics_data *priv,
> > > > > struct synaptics_hw_state *hw)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - hw->x = (((buf[3] & 0x10) << 8) | ((buf[1] & 0x0f) << 8) | buf[4]);
> > > > > - hw->y = (((buf[3] & 0x20) << 7) | ((buf[1] & 0xf0) << 4) | buf[5]);
> > > > > + int x = (((buf[3] & 0x10) << 8) | ((buf[1] & 0x0f) << 8) | buf[4]);
> > > > > + int y = (((buf[3] & 0x20) << 7) | ((buf[1] & 0xf0) << 4) | buf[5]);
> > > > >
> > > > > hw->z = buf[2];
> > > > > hw->w = (((buf[0] & 0x30) >> 2) |
> > > > > ((buf[0] & 0x04) >> 1) |
> > > > > ((buf[3] & 0x04) >> 2));
> > > > >
> > > > > - hw->left = buf[0] & 0x01;
> > > > > - hw->right = buf[0] & 0x02;
> > > > > + if (SYN_CAP_CLICKPAD(priv->ext_cap)) {
> > > > > + int click = (buf[0] ^ buf[3]) & 0x01;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (click && y < YMIN_NOMINAL) {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * User pressed in ClickZone; report new button
> > > > > + * state but use old coordinates and don't report
> > > > > + * any pressure to prevent pointer movement.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + hw->left = x < CLICKPAD_LEFT_BTN_X;
> > > > > + hw->right = x > CLICKPAD_RIGHT_BTN_X;
> > > > > + hw->middle = x >= CLICKPAD_LEFT_BTN_X &&
> > > > > + x <= CLICKPAD_RIGHT_BTN_X;
> > > > > + hw->z = 0;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Finger is outside of the ClickZone - report
> > > > > + * current coordinates.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + hw->x = x;
> > > > > + hw->y = y;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!click)
> > > > > + hw->left = hw->right = hw->middle = 0;
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > Here, when you touch outside the button area, left/right/middle are
> > > > always zero because hw was initialized. So the above code gives the
> > > > click "released" state outside the button area.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, I got rid of resetting hw state to 0.
> >
> > Ah, it's in the second patch.
> >
> > But looking at that one, hw is a local variable and still doesn't
> > inherit from the previous state, no? If so, the button state will be
> > just a random value.
> >
>
> Indeed, we need to keep the state in synaptics now, thanks for noticing.
> The updated patch is below.
Setting BTN_MIDDLE bit in set_input_params() is missing for clickpad.
Otherwise it looks OK to me (and the patch description is much better
than mine ;) Will test the patch later.
thanks,
Takashi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
