On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Dmitry Torokhov
<dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:19:40AM +0100, Chase Douglas wrote:
>> On 01/12/2012 01:22 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> >> Here's what I believe the meanings should be:
>> >>
>> >> Touchpad: pointer, !direct
>> >> Touchscreen: !pointer, direct
>> >> Drawing tablet: pointer, direct
>> >> Magic mouse-like devices: !pointer, !direct
>> >
>> > Yes, this is what everyone is saying, except !pointer && !direct means
>> > "default" or "figure it out some other way".
>> >
>> >> However, there is a further problem in that we can't easily support
>> >> multiple tools with different behavior on the same evdev device. What
>> >> would you say a bamboo touch+pen is, which I believe is used as an
>> >> indirect device for touch but a direct device for tools. Thus, in the
>> >> thread I linked from back in September, Henrik and I agreed that direct
>> >> should only apply when the tool is touch, and pointer should apply for
>> >> all other tools. This would result in the following:
>> >
>> > To try to move back to a sane track, try this, where the word "apply"
>> > in the previous paragraph has been changed to "care" instead:
>>
>> I am still having trouble understanding what you are saying. If I
>> literally try to insert "care" into the paragraph, I am confused because
>> it's not quite correct grammar. I'm really trying to understand though.
>> Also, maybe a better term than "don't care" is "not applicable"?
>>
>> It would help me most if you could explicitly provide your own
>> definition of the properties.
>>
>> >> Touchpad: !pointer, !direct
>> >
>> > pointer && !direct, since pointer is "dont care".
>>
>> Here you say !direct if "don't care".
>>
>> >> Touchscreen: !pointer, direct
>> >
>> > Yes, !pointer && direct.
>> >
>> >> Drawing tablet (no touch): pointer, !direct
>> >
>> > pointer && direct, but the tool is not touch, so direct is "dont care".
>>
>> Here you say direct if "don't care".
>>
>> Why the difference?
>>
>> >> Pen+touch tablet: pointer, direct
>> >
>> > Yes, pointer && direct
>> >
>> >> Magic mouse-like devices: !pointer, !direct
>> >
>> > Both pointer and direct are "dont care", and the device needs to be
>> > detected some other way. If there ever will be a special driver for
>> > magic-mouse-like devices, using both relative pointer and touch data,
>> > it will make sense to add a special property for such devices.
>>
>> Right now we are missing a property for a magic-mouse like device. It's
>> valid to have neither direct nor pointer set from kernels 2.6.38 through
>> 3.2 (at least).
>>
>> > Hopefully the above is showing clearly that what was "documented" in
>> > the threads enclosing the protocol patches still holds, and that there
>> > is no use to dwell on it further.
>> >
>> >> The properties weren't documented when they were merged, and they
>> >> obviously aren't clear. However, if either table above is correct, then
>> >> we can't assume that !pointer && !direct means "unknown".
>> >
>> > If all devices fell in the pointer or direct or both categories, we
>> > could. If not all devices do, the problem is rather that some property
>> > bits are missing (or excluded) from the description.
>>
>> Given my last statement above, we have a problem because previously
>> released kernels are reporting the magic mouse correctly, and yet we
>> still can't distinguish it from another device that merely does not have
>> the property bits set. This is the crux of the issue as I see it. We
>> cannot differentiate between "unknown" and a specific type of device
>> given the interfaces from 2.6.38 through 3.2.
>>
>> >> There is a way to fix this in a backwards compatible way: add a new
>> >> property bit called something like "PROPERTIES_AVAILABLE". If any bits
>> >> are set, then it implies that the properties are available (which covers
>> >> older kernels). If no bits are set, then the properties are unknown.
>> >> What do you think?
>> >
>> > It is rather the special properties of the magic mouse that are
>> > missing. All types of devices do not _have_ to use properties; most
>> > types can be figured out by other means.
>> >
>> > Saying "prop == 0" is equivalent to "figure out some other way" makes
>> > sense, but it is also sensible to say "(prop & some_subclass_of_bits)
>> > == 0", since some properties are bound to describe totally different
>> > things. This is what we did with "!direct && !pointer".
>>
>> This may work, but we need to document the classes. The next time any
>> properties are added the documentation must be included :).
>>
>> >>> The same is applicable to other properties as well. If device is telling
>> >>> you that it is a "buttonpad" you can trust it, but if it does not you
>> >>> need to decide for yourself how to treat it.
>> >
>> > Yes, and this will always be true. Old devices or systems that become
>> > used in new ways cannot always adapt to a "if property not present
>> > then dont use that way" policy.
>> >
>> >> No, in kernels previous to 2.6.38 it's clearly unknown. My problem is
>> >> that I believe there was no way to determine unknown properties. If
>> >> unknown properties is equivalent to magic-mouse like devices, then we're
>> >> going to treat a lot of devices wrong. Or, we have to use heuristics to
>> >> determine what a device is, like no properties and MT and REL_{X,Y} ==
>> >> magic-mouse like. Properties was supposed to resolve this once and for
>> >> all, so we didn't need heuristics.
>> >
>> > Properties were added to be able to distinguish usecases that could
>> > not be distinguished at all before. It was never meant to replace
>> > everything else.
>>
>> Why shouldn't we use it for that? The code in evdev for determining the
>> type of device is just a big hack. We'll obviously need it for a while
>> since we don't have all drivers with all necessary properties set, but
>> it seems a waste to have the interface and not fully use it.
>>
>> >>>> Henrik, can you comment on the documentation patches? You wrote the
>> >>>> patch, so you hopefully know what's going on :).
>> >
>> > I wasn't copied in on the conversation, but they seem fairly well
>> > commented on already.
>>
>> It's still not clear to me what the definitions are. It seems it won't
>> be clear until either you or Dmitry give your own definitions in an
>> explicit manner (something that could be copied into the formal
>> documentation). Please help me out :).
>>
>
> OK, so how about this:
>
> INPUT_PROP_DIRECT:
>
> This property idicates that device coordinates can be directly mapped to
"Can", or "should"? A number of touchpads "can" be directly mapped,
but aren't because it goes against the user's expectation.
> screen coordinates (not taking into account trivial transformations,
> such as scaling, flipping and rotating). Non-direct input devices
> require non-trivial transformation, such as absolute to relative
> transformation for touchpads. Typical direct input devices:
> touchscreens, drawing tablets; non-direct devices: touchpads, mice.
This doesn't match what the wacom driver already exposes. Display
tablets set the DIRECT bit, but non-display tablets do not.
> INPUT_PROP_POINTER:
>
> This property indicates that the device is not transposed on the screen
> and thus requires use of an on-screen pointer to trace user's movements.
> Typical pointer devices: touchpads, tablets, mice; non-pointer device:
> touchscreen.
>
> How does this sound?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Dmitry
> --
> 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
Jason
---
Day xee-nee-svsh duu-'ushtlh-ts'it;
nuu-wee-ya' duu-xan' 'vm-nvshtlh-ts'it.
Huu-chan xuu naa~-gha.
--
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
