Randy Dunlap wrote: [...] >> +Protocol Usage >> +-------------- >> + >> +Contact details are sent sequentially as separate packets of ABS_MT >> +events. Only the ABS_MT events are recognized as part of a contact >> +packet. Since these events are ignored by current single-touch (ST) >> +applications, the MT protocol can be implemented on top of the ST protocol >> +in an existing driver. >> + >> +Drivers for type A devices mark the end of a packet by calling the > > end? > >> +input_mt_sync() function, which generates a SYN_MT_REPORT event. This >> +instructs the receiver to accept the data for the current contact and >> +prepare to receive another. Drivers for type B devices mark the beginning > > vs. beginning? Seems incongruous. And not just to the doc, but to > producers and consumers as well. Perhaps this modification makes it clearer? Drivers for type A devices separate contact packets by calling input_mt_sync() at the end of each packet. This generates a SYN_MT_REPORT event, which instructs the receiver to accept the data for the current contact and prepare to receive another. Drivers for type B devices separate contact packets by calling input_mt_slot(), with a slot as argument, at the beginning of each packet. This generates an ABS_MT_SLOT event, which instructs the receiver to prepare for updates of the given slot. >> +of a packet by calling the input_mt_slot() function with a slot as >> +argument, which generates an ABS_MT_SLOT event. This instructs the receiver >> +to prepare for updates of the given slot. >> + >> +The end of a multi-touch transfer is marked by calling the usual > > The end method is done for Types A and B, right? How about this line instead? All drivers mark the end of a multi-touch transfer by calling the usual > is Changed, thanks. Henrik -- 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
