On 08/02/2010 02:46 PM, Éric Piel wrote: [...] >> >> We can do better in the sense that since the device cannot comply with MT-A, we >> can do as close as possible to MT-B with less cpu usage. But frankly, the best >> solution at this stage seems to be to drop MT handling altogether, since there >> does not seem to be any plan to use it. > Ah, this alternative solution is a bit boring ;-) In addition it's not > compatible with my own master plan to eventually have the "pinch to > zoom" and "rotate to rotate" gestures work on my laptop, like in Windows ;-) Since rotational symmetry is what prevents us from implementing proper MT support, it is not likely going to work anyways. > So, let's agree on just the two patches I'm going to send to support > "better than nothing" MT-protocol for now. When, later, someone has > better ideas, he can send patches to improve MT-protocol > support/compliance. Fine? No. I think it is fair to say we tried to make it work properly, but the (known) information about the device is simply not enough. As long as MT does not work properly, there is no point in adding it at all - in particular not an elaborate solution. I can see that zoom would work even with a poor MT implementation, but that is not what the MT protocol is about. Maybe one day someone will find the missing information somewhere in the packets. For your usecase, perhaps one should add ABS_ZOOM etcetera instead, and patch up synaptics to use those values. 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
