> > @@ -279,6 +279,24 @@ static void synaptics_set_rate(struct psmouse *psmouse, unsigned int rate)
> > synaptics_mode_cmd(psmouse, priv->mode);
> > }
> >
> > +static int synaptics_set_multitouch_mode(struct psmouse *psmouse)
> > +{
> > + static unsigned char param = 0xc8;
> > + struct synaptics_data *priv = psmouse->private;
> > +
> > + if (!SYN_CAP_MULTITOUCH(priv->ext_cap_0c))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (psmouse_sliced_command(psmouse, SYN_QUE_MODEL))
> > + return -1;
> > + if (ps2_command(&psmouse->ps2dev, ¶m, PSMOUSE_CMD_SETRATE))
> > + return -1;
> > +
> > + priv->multitouch = 1;
>
> That should be bool/true. Also, do we need to have this variable at all
> since we seem to abort initialization if multitouch mode fails?
The logic of the all-patches-applied version does depend on the
advanced gesture flag, but sure, instead of this variable, one could
set the SYN_CAP_MULTIFINGER bit, and use SYN_CAP_MULTITOUCH explicitly
in remaining places. And, of course, another round of testing.
>
> > + printk(KERN_INFO "Synaptics: Multitouch mode enabled\n");
>
> I'd rather only reported if we failed to activate multitouch mode on
> devices that ought support it.
Ok.
> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
> > #define SYN_CAP_PRODUCT_ID(ec) (((ec) & 0xff0000) >> 16)
> > #define SYN_CAP_CLICKPAD(ex0c) ((ex0c) & 0x100100)
> > #define SYN_CAP_MAX_DIMENSIONS(ex0c) ((ex0c) & 0x020000)
> > +#define SYN_CAP_MULTITOUCH(ex0c) ((ex0c) & 0x080000)
>
> Synaptics calls this bit "Advanced Gesture", I think we should do the
> same as they might produce full-MT devices in the future.
>
> Also, how useful is this patch without the 4th one? Why aren't they
> folded together?
This first patch implements multi-finger support in the same fashion
as older hardware, thus enabling for instance hw-finger scroll in
synaptics.
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
