On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:50:55PM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> Hi Henrik,
>
> Thanks for spotting this. BTW, I'm not happy with your solution.
>
> You are sending the feature report before creating the struct
> hid_input. To be consistent with the rest, we have to keep the same
> signature. Today, the code does not make any use of it. But I use it
> in my devel branch to auto-detect the maximum contact count of the
> device. This was the safest place to call input_mt_init_slots.
Well, the whole point is "which input device". It would only be
well-defined when the hid device has a single input device. The
feature callback could be called last, however, if that helps.
> How about adding hidinput as an argument to report_features
>
> and calling it after the " for (k = HID_INPUT_REPORT; k <=
> HID_OUTPUT_REPORT; k++) {" loop with
>
> list_for_each_entry_safe(hidinput, next, &hid->inputs, list)
> report_features(hid, hidinput);
>
> I did not even try to compile it right now (I don't have any
> multitouch device right now) but I'll be able to make further tests
> tomorrow.
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
