On 14.07.2017 10:24, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:54:03AM +0200, Florian Echtler wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:11:53AM +0200, Florian Echtler wrote: >>>> >>>> Related question: we first attempted to label non-touch objects as MT_TOOL_PALM, >>>> but it looks like userspace (Xorg in particular) doesn't actually distinguish >>>> between MT_TOOL_* types; is that correct? >>> >>> It really should, but I think Peter never got around implementing this. >>> >>> Also, I think it is a good idea to set touch major to max in this case. >>> I believe that that will help clients that do no understand MT_TOOL_PALM >>> to still do palm rejection. >>> >>> Peter? >> >> Would you consider merging v2 of the patch regardless of the Xorg situation? >> Right now, it's a useful bugfix in any case, and we can deal with how to >> represent blobs/palms/tokens later on. > > sorry about the delay, bit chaotic here. libinput 1.8 was released a week or > so ago and it supports MT_TOOL_PALM, so consider userspace ready for that. I > also have patches to use major/minor for palm detection where appropriate > which will hit git master (my) tonight. Nevermind :-) Just to clarify, I can now set MT_TOOL_PALM on generic blob objects, and they will still be available in userspace "on request", but will not be considered as touch points? Do you know how "legacy" xserver-xorg-input-evdev will handle this case? And final question: the SUR40 also is able to identify specific patterns as tokens (so-called "bytetags", see https://github.com/floe/surface-2.0/blob/master/bytetag/bytetag.pdf ). What would be a sensible way to expose these to userspace, too? Add another MT_TOOL_TOKEN type? Thanks & best regards, Florian -- SENT FROM MY DEC VT50 TERMINAL
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
