>>> /* >>> + * Device properties and quirks >>> + */ >>> + >>> +#define INPUT_PROP_POINTER 0x00 /* needs a pointer */ >>> +#define INPUT_PROP_DIRECT 0x01 /* direct object manipulation */ >> >> fwiw, I think the common term for these is "direct input devices", at least >> that's how a lot of the research literature refers to them. Might be good to >> use the same term. >> >> either way, not sure about this one. I've worked with devices that were >> indirect by nature but used directly. e.g. the magic touchpad could quite >> easily be used as direct input device with an top-down projector. the >> decision to use it as an indirect device is a UI decision. >> Likewise, some mountable direct-touch touchscreens can be used indirectly if >> the touchscreen isn't mounted straight on the display. This is very much a >> setup-specific property and I'm not sure about the value of this >> information. > > All of these "props" would have no reflection on the event stream > generated by the device, and exist solely for the benefits of userspace > consumers to help them set up the device automatically and interpret the > data appropriately. As such, if someone uses touchscreen as a tablet, I > believe userspace should allow it, but at the price of manual setup. > > If we start seeing cuch devices we could consider EVIOCSPROPS so > infrastructure (udev) could adjust the properties so that upper levels > (X) can still use the data to set up devices properly. > > What do you think? > I am not 100% convinced. If other things like touchscreen orientation would fit into that flow as well, then I'd say yes. But if there will always be a difference between a default device setting and a system-wide device setting, then it seems reasonable to handle this in userspace. 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
