Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 08:02:40PM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >> 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. >> > > We, however, could say that SYN_MT_REPORT may be omitted by the drivers > using slotting mechanism. > Yes. If that is still unclear from the documentation, I will happily modify it. 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
