On 11.05.2017 14:50, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
On 2017-05-11 14:28, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Martin Kepplinger
<martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-05-11 13:28, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Martin Kepplinger
<martin.kepplinger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2017-05-11 12:12, Arek Burdach wrote:
On 11.05.2017 11:48, Martin Kepplinger wrote:
On 2017-05-10 11:36, Arek Burdach wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On 10.05.2017 01:47, Andrew Duggan wrote:
HI Arek,
On 05/09/2017 04:17 PM, Arek Burdach wrote:
Hi,
I've tried described by you solution:
diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
index 37084b645785..81f271554b6c 100644
--- a/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
+++ b/drivers/hid/hid-core.c
@@ -2510,6 +2510,7 @@ static const struct hid_device_id
hid_ignore_list[] = {
You need to add this to the hid_have_special_driver[] and not the
hid_ignore_list[].
Nice score for me - two lines and one bug :-)
But, if you do success in binding hid-rmi to a touchscreen it won't
work. The firmware between touchpads and touchscreens are different
enough that the hid-rmi driver will be looking for data which does not
exist in touchscreen's HID report. These differences also mean that it
really isn't a good idea to try to support touchscreens with hid-rmi.
It would actually result in more transactions and be less efficient
then simply using hid-multitouch. That's why hid-core checks for the
HID_SCAN_FLAG_GD_POINTER in an attempt to make sure it's binding to a
touchpad and not a touchscreen.
It was just like you predict. On rmi, after first tap on screen, hidraw
produced infinite number of events and it is not usable anymore.
On 09.05.2017 16:02, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Arek Burdach
<arek.burdach@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 09.05.2017 14:20, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Arek Burdach
<arek.burdach@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,
Thank you for response.
On 09.05.2017 10:35, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 9:28 PM, Arek Burdach
<arek.burdach@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi,
A week ago I've reported a bug:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=195625 Is there
anybody
that
can
help me with it?
I can have a look at it.
Please attach the full outputs of hid-recorder and evemu-record
in the
bugs, or it'll be difficult for us to debug it.
I've attached full logs for two situations. More details in the
issue.
Thanks, looks like a firmware issue (I'll comment in the bug).
Sorry for my noob questions, but do you suggest that it can't be
fixed by
changes in kernel modules and I need to report it to the
manufacturer?
Yes. Though Andrew, in CC, works for Synaptics and might give us
some pointers.
If it so, do you have an idea why it works well on Windows? Do they
have
some strange hacks in their drivers?
I have no ideas how well it works under Windows, and I have no ideas
if there are some strange hacks in the Windows nor in the Syanptics
driver (I would assume so).
We don't provide any drivers for touchscreens on Windows. So I don't
know how Microsoft is handling a situation like this.
Do you know what should be changed in firmware to make hid-touchscreen
driver works correctly? Or maybe you know someone who is responsible for
firmware for this device and whom I can call to gather this information?
In case there *really* is broken firmware out there, we can specifically
identify via struct input_id's version number for example,
I thought that Benjamin identified this as a broken firmware. I've
attached hidraw log in the issue and there is no release event, so it
looks like a firmware bug. How do you suggest to handle this situation
in kernel? We can identify the device but what to do next if we have no
information if user released finger or not?
I want to
point out that I would accept adding a workaround in tslib's input-raw
module ( http://tslib.org ) if it won't be done in the kernel.
So, in case you can and want to use tslib as a workaround here, feel
free to have a look and send the patches that make input-raw.c work for
you over there.
I want to be as handy as I can but I'm not sure how tslib could help in
this situation. If we have too much data, it can filter out unnecessary
events but I don't think that it can help when there is lack of events
or I'm missing something?
Might as well be, I might not have thought it all through, but in
tslib's module_raw input you can can get totally creative: Why not start
*every* sync frame with BTN_TOUCH 1 and end it with BTN_TOUCH 0? You
*are* able to add stuff. Filters don't usually do it though.
Ouch, please don't. You'll send an endless click/release sequence
which will break drag and drop, double click and so on.
ah you're right, that's nonsense.
Also, this won't solve the issue because the multitouch slot will not
be released.
The only solution (which i believe the Windows driver does, but I
believed only for Windows 7 compatible touchscreen), is to arm a timer
for each slot, and when you don't receive an update after let's say 5
seconds, you release the slot.
It's awful and I always have been against adding such pain in the
hid-multitouch driver.
yes. still breaks "move after hold>5s" but would probably be the only
way to make this somewhat work.
No, you won't have "move after hold>5s" broken. Because at the HID
level, the device is supposed to send an update on every touch when
reporting a touch (for Windows 8 devices). So if there are tiny
movements filtered at the input level in the kernel, we will get those
and I suspect the timeout will only appear when the finger actual
leaves the surface.
ok. sounds a little more like a solution in the kernel would be
justified. Isn't it? It still feels dangerously ugly.
Mainly I wanted to point out that if you somehow have to stay with "no"
for such broken devices, tslib would be a garbage can for userspace
workarounds. (in this case, most probably a new device-specific hidraw
based module).
Sorry for a stupid question, but do we still discussing a solution for
this device until Synaptics will correct firmware? What do you
understand by firmware? A code in C compiled to kernel's module handling
IRQs? Or a BIOS?
Why we need to think about workarounds and not just solve the problem in
the root? Will it take a long time and we want to have a quick fix for
similar cases or for other reasons?
--
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
