Ping Cheng wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Ping Cheng wrote: >>> What I am thinking is that we only need one SYN_ call for both _MT_ >>> and regular data combined, which is a call to input_sync() at the end >>> of the whole packet. The SYN_MT_ can be replaced by the following >>> example, which I think is more "client-friendly". This solution is >>> based on the fact that the major difference between type A and type B >>> is whether we need to filter the data or not: >>> >>> ABS_MT_RANDOM 0 >>> ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[0] >>> ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[0] >>> ABS_MT_ RANDOM 1 >>> ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[1] >>> ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[1] >>> SYN_REPORT >>> >>> input_set_abs_params(input_dev, ABS_MT_RANDOM, 0, 2, 0, 0); >>> >>> would tell the clients that they can expect two random touches. >> And if you do s/RANDOM/SLOT/, you end up with what? ;-) > > Haha, I know what you are thinking :). > > Maybe I didn't make my point clear. I didn't mean to make SLOT > backward compatible. I meant to replace SYN_MT_REPORT event with the > ABS_MT_ RANDOM label so we only sync the whole packet once at the end. > This way both types of MT_ data follow the same input event reporting > flow.... You mean changing the type A protocol, breaking the current code base? That is a big no-no. > SLOT and RANDOM are both needed since they deal with two different > types of MT data, filtered (type B) and unfiltered (type A). There is > no midunderstanding there. > > Ping 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