> Imagine a tablet driver only has INPUT_PROP_DIRECT set. According to the > "unknown" definition, it's ok to leave INPUT_PROP_POINTER as unset. But > then userspace will end up treating it like a touchscreen instead of a > tablet. INPUT_PROP_DIRECT and INPUT_PROP_POINTER go together, remember? Thus, there is no problem using the input properties to determine the (touchscreen, touchpad, tablet) types. > If you are unwilling to backport property bits to stable kernels, then I > don't think we have any other choice than to leave the definition as > "unset bits are unknown", but it clearly puts userspace in a bind. > Because the evdev event codes are clear (BTN_TOUCH means touchscreen, > BTN_TOOL_FINGER means touchpad) and these property bits are not, I doubt > userspace will ever rely on the direct and pointer property bits. BUTTONPAD If set, treat as button pad. If not set and bcm5974, look at result of older method. Else, treat as not button pad. SEMIMT If set, treat as semimt device. If not set, treat as not semimt device. There, all four types are now fully defined and backwards compatible. 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
