>>> I think that presence of pen/touch can be detected by having >>> BTN_TOOL_PEN and BTN_TOOL_FINGER. However in this case the tool is >>> finger, so I do not think we should introduce BTN_TOOL_ENVELOPE. Maybe >>> this is another case where we should employ the proposed device flags? >> >> Yes. Having something like INPUT_QUIRK_SEMI_MT might be enough, and we could >> drop the whole MT_TOOL_ENVELOPE circus. Chase, Peter, Chris, would you be >> comfortable with such a solution? > > That sounds like a good solution to me. I believe it would resolve all > the issues I had. Sounds good. > As I attempted to write up more documentation, I thought of the > following. What do you think? > > With regards to partial MT devices, if the device provides a single > valued property, such as pressure and tool type for synaptics, it may > only be provided through the traditional property semantics, i.e. > ABS_PRESSURE and BTN_TOOL_*. If the device provides multiple values for > a property, then ABS_MT_* types may be used as well to provide up to two > values, though the client should understand there's no direct > correlation between the slot's coordinates and the property. I could see > this being used to provide info on multiple tool types or a high and low > pressure. > > Enforcing the above behaviour provides even more information about the > capabilities of the device based solely on the evdev codes published. Looks good, but I do not think we need to formalize all possibilities here, only the usage of MT data for bounding rectangle and ST data for finger count. Referring to the patch just sent: whenever INPUT_PROP_SEMI_MT is true, this behavior is expected. In the event of new odd hardware, the combination of a new property quirk and a documented recipe should do the trick. 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
