> >> 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. > > So the patch is useful. Indeed. :-) > >> - 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. > > That's the way the patch works: we can still manually provide the > maxcontact per class, but if it's not needed (the device sends proper > value), then we can skip it. I misread the original patch, the maxcontacts are still there, so this point is moot. Sorry about that. :-) > >> - 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. :-) > > What I meant was the dynamic behavior of the device, not the static > capabilities. ;) > > Am I right if I take your reply as an Ack? I will reply to the original patch with some comments. 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
