On 03/09/2010 04:19 PM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Rafi Rubin wrote:
Since you're considering protocol clarification, what's your opinion on
splitting the multi-touch and single touch (possibly emulated) to
separate input devices?
What would be the advantages?
With the N-Trig device it would more closely match the device rdesc. At
least for the firmwares I've had a chance to examine. hid device
describes 3 input devices: 1. pen, 2. multi touch, 3. single touch.
Depending on the mode, the hardware sends single touch events to either
the mt report (mt modes) or single touch report.
If mt/st multiplexing is preferred, perhaps it would be better to adjust
the device naming, and possibly collapse the second and third devices
into a single device.
Either way, I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing to keep the
behavior of the input devices as consistent as possible and not having
events jump from dev to dev based on the direction of the wind.
The only real reason I see to argue in favor of splitting the two
streams is as a crutch to inadequate user space tools. So perhaps
that's not even worth discussing.
So how can I prevent the third input from being allocated without
eliminating the second?
Rafi
--
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
