On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:03:45AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 09:42, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Benjamin, > > > >> This patch enables support of autodetection of maxcontacts. > >> We can still manually provide maxcontact in case the device > >> lies on it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxx> > > > > It seems quite alright to let the classes contain the expected number > > of contacts, so I do not really see the reason for that part of the > > patch. How about keeping the maxcontacts in the class, and then do > > max(hid-provided-maxcontacts, default-maxcontacts)? > > > > Yep, I've got three particular reasons: > - 3M: there are two devices now, 1968 and 2256. The first one is a 10 > touches only, whereas the second one is a 60 touches. Right, so increasing the number of touches based on device information seems like a good idea. > - autodetection of multitouch devices. I have some patches on my tree > (that we do not want to go upstream right now for some reasons) that > allows us to plug any unknown multitouch devices and to let > hid-multitouch handling it. As most of the devices are 2 touches only, > and as the generic way to work with a multitouch devices is to iterate > over all the slots, using 10 touches by default infers a lot of > instructions that can be avoided. Right, so keeping the default number of touches per class seems like a good idea. > - finally, it simplifies the writing of the new CLS (we just need to > know how the device works to add the right quirks). Right, we always need to know how the device works. :-) Cheers, 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
