On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I need double check with you although I think I know the answer. From >> your explanation and examples so far, I see MT_SLOT is only associated >> with one (x,y). Is this true? If yes, can we eliminate the >> requirement for TRACKING_ID? If you think the requirement is >> necessary, can you give me an example where missing the TRACKING_ID >> would bring issue or confusion? > > Yes, each slot can only be associated with one (x, y) pair. No, we cannot > disregard the tracking id. A slot tracks a single contact for its entire > lifetime, during which the tracking id serves no purpose, but the slot cannot > tell us when the contact is replaced by a new one. This information is carried > by the tracking id. Ok, I've made enough noise in this thread. If we change SYN_MT_SLOT to ABS_MT_SLOT_ID (or something starting with ABS_ of your choice), I have no more questions. You can put my reviewed-by in the patch if that counts for anything: Reviewed-by: Ping Cheng <pingc@xxxxxxxxx> Ping -- 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
