Joonyoung Shim wrote:
[...]
> I see, but i have something wondering at your document.
>
> This is your patch of "Document the MT event slot protocol"
>
> +Protocol Example A
> +------------------
> +
> +Here is what a minimal event sequence for a two-contact touch would look
> +like for a type A device:
> +
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[0]
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[0]
> + SYN_MT_REPORT
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[1]
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[1]
> + SYN_MT_REPORT
> + SYN_REPORT
>
> +The sequence after moving one of the contacts looks exactly the same; the
> +raw data for all present contacts are sent between every synchronization
> +with SYN_REPORT.
>
> -Usage
> ------
> +Here is the sequence after lifting the first contact:
> +
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_X x[1]
> + ABS_MT_POSITION_Y y[1]
> + SYN_MT_REPORT
> + SYN_REPORT
> +
> +And here is the sequence after lifting the second contact:
> +
> + SYN_MT_REPORT
> + SYN_REPORT
> +
>
> Here, there is no reporting for ABS_MT_POSITION_X/Y event, because that
> is the last contact?
> Then, the coordinates of the first contact are x[1] and y[1], right? If
> yes, it is some confusing, i think they are x[0] and y[0].
It is a bit confusing I agree, but the document is correct. The empty
input_mt_sync() is used when there is no data to report, no lifted fingers,
nothing. Just imagine a device which gets polled periodically.
[...]
>> I see. And you want BTN_TOUCH to follow the logic for the single touch? I think
>> that is the main issue here. We can have _one_ of the following definitions, but
>> not both:
>>
>> 1. input_report_key(input_dev, BTN_TOUCH, finger_num > 0);
>>
>
> OK, i will use this. This was original code.
>
>> 2. input_report_key(input_dev, BTN_TOUCH,
>> finger[single_id].status != QT602240_RELEASE);
>>
>> If you use the latter, there should be another event to denote the finger_num ==
>> 0 case. This line at the end should do it:
>>
>> if (finger_num == 0)
>> input_mt_sync(input_dev);
>>
>
> I don't know why this needs?
The general reason is the one given above. Since you are going with the first
option, it won't be needed.
> Here, there are fixed codes. How about do you think?
>
> static void qt602240_input_report(struct qt602240_data *data, int single_id)
> {
> struct qt602240_finger *finger = data->finger;
> struct input_dev *input_dev = data->input_dev;
> int status = finger[single_id].status;
> int finger_num = 0;
> int id;
>
> for (id = 0; id < QT602240_MAX_FINGER; id++) {
> if (!finger[id].status)
> continue;
>
> input_report_abs(input_dev, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR,
> finger[id].status != QT602240_RELEASE ?
> finger[id].area : 0);
> input_report_abs(input_dev, ABS_MT_POSITION_X,
> finger[id].x);
> input_report_abs(input_dev, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y,
> finger[id].y);
> input_mt_sync(input_dev);
>
> if (finger[id].status == QT602240_RELEASE)
> finger[id].status = 0;
> else
> finger_num++;
> }
>
> input_report_key(input_dev, BTN_TOUCH, finger_num > 0);
>
> if (status != QT602240_RELEASE) {
> input_report_abs(input_dev, ABS_X, finger[single_id].x);
> input_report_abs(input_dev, ABS_Y, finger[single_id].y);
> }
>
> input_sync(input_dev);
> }
>
>
> Thanks.
This looks like it will work.
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
