On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Chase Douglas <chasedouglas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think these are the clearest definitions I've seen of these > properties. It would be good to get them documented in > Documentation/input. Henrik, would you be able to do this? Agreed, but I feel we also need some clarity around the desired interpretations of different tools in relation to direct / indirect motion and these bits. For example: BTN_TOOL_FINGER / MT_FINGER: - Positions are absolute is INPUT_PROP_DIRECT, or relative otherwise. - Shows a pointer only if INPUT_PROP_POINTER is set. (IMHO, relative motion should be preferred for touch pads that are not physically coupled to a particular display. Trackpad-like vs. tablet-like behavior, especially if "hovering" is not supported or if the touch pad is small.) BTN_TOOL_PEN / BTN_TOOL_BRUSH / MT_PEN: - Positions are always one-to-one with screen coordinates regardless of INPUT_PROP_DIRECT. If INPUT_PROP_DIRECT is set then we can take it as a stronger indication of the pen being coupled to a particular display (rather than spanning all displays or being bound to a specific window, perhaps). - Shows a pointer only if INPUT_PROP_POINTER is set. BTN_TOOL_MOUSE / BTN_TOOL_LENS: - Positions are always relative, regardless of INPUT_PROP_DIRECT. - Shows a pointer, regardless of INPUT_PROP_POINTER. We should also define heuristics for legacy devices that don't set either INPUT_PROP_DIRECT or INPUT_PROP_POINTER. Jeff. -- 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
