On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:55 AM, Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:19:44PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:42:31PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Dmitry Torokhov >> > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:18:12PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> > >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 8:43 PM, Dmitry Torokhov >> > >> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 04:16:09PM +0200, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Dmitry Torokhov >> > >> >> <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> > According to Microsoft specification [1] for Precision Touchpads (and >> > >> >> > Touchscreens) the devices use "confidence" reports to signal accidental >> > >> >> > touches, or contacts that are "too large to be a finger". Instead of >> > >> >> > simply marking contact inactive in this case (which causes issues if >> > >> >> > contact was originally proper and we lost confidence in it later, as >> > >> >> > this results in accidental clicks, drags, etc), let's report such >> > >> >> > contacts as MT_TOOL_PALM and let userspace decide what to do. >> > >> >> > Additionally, let's report contact size for such touches as maximum >> > >> >> > allowed for major/minor, which should help userspace that is not yet >> > >> >> > aware of MT_TOOL_PALM to still perform palm rejection. >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > An additional complication, is that some firmwares do not report >> > >> >> > non-confident touches as active. To cope with this we delay release of >> > >> >> > such contact (i.e. if contact was active we first report it as still >> > >> >> > active MT+TOOL_PALM and then synthesize the release event in a separate >> > >> >> > frame). >> > >> >> >> > >> >> I am not sure I agree with this part. The spec says that "Once a >> > >> >> device has determined that a contact is unintentional, it should clear >> > >> >> the confidence bit for that contact report and all subsequent >> > >> >> reports." >> > >> >> So in theory the spec says that if a touch has been detected as a >> > >> >> palm, the flow of events should not stop (tested on the PTP of the >> > >> >> Dell XPS 9360). >> > >> >> >> > >> >> However, I interpret a firmware that send (confidence 1, tip switch 1) >> > >> >> and then (confidence 0, tip switch 0) a simple release, and the >> > >> >> confidence bit should not be relayed. >> > >> > >> > >> > This unfortunately leads to false clicks: you start with finger, so >> > >> > confidence is 1, then you transition the same touch to palm (use your >> > >> > thumb and "roll" your hand until heel of it comes into contact with the >> > >> > screen). The firmware reports "no-confidence" and "release" in the same >> > >> > report and userspace seeing release does not pay attention to confidence >> > >> > (i.e. it does exactly "simple release" logic) and this results in UI >> > >> > interpreting this as a click. With splitting no-confidence >> > >> > (MT_TOOL_PALM) and release event into separate frames we help userspace >> > >> > to recognize that the contact should be discarded. >> > >> >> > >> After further thoughts, I would consider this to be a firmware bug, >> > >> and not how the firmware is supposed to be reporting palm. >> > >> For the precision touchpads, the spec says that the device "should >> > >> clear the confidence bit for that contact report and all subsequent >> > >> reports.". And it is how the Dell device I have here reports palms. >> > >> The firmware is not supposed to cut the event stream. >> > >> >> > >> There is a test for that: >> > >> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/hardware/hck/dn456905%28v%3dvs.85%29 >> > >> which tells me that I am right here for PTP. >> > >> >> > >> The touchscreen spec is blurrier however. >> > > >> > > OK, that is great to know. >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Do you have any precise example of reports where you need that feature? >> > >> > >> > >> > It was observed on Pixelbooks which use Wacom digitizers IIRC. >> > >> >> > >> Pixelbooks + Wacom means that it was likely a touchscreen. I am right >> > >> guessing the device did not went through Microsoft certification >> > >> process? >> > > >> > > That would be correct ;) At least the firmware that is shipping with >> > > Pixlebooks hasn't, I do now if anyone else sourced these Wacom parts for >> > > their MSWin devices. >> > > >> > >> >> > >> I am in favor of splitting the patch in 2. One for the generic >> > >> processing of confidence bit, and one for this spurious release. For >> > >> the spurious release, I'm more in favor of explicitly quirking the >> > >> devices in need of such quirk. >> > > >> > > Hmm, I am not sure about having specific quirk. It will be hard for >> > > users to accurately diagnose the issue if firmware is broken in this way >> > > so we could add a new quirk for a new device. >> > >> > One thing we can do is keep the quirked mechanism as default in >> > hid-multitouch, but remove it in hid-core. If people need the quirk, >> > they can just use hid-multitouch instead (talking about the long run >> > here). >> >> Hmm, I am confused. My patch did not touch hid-core or hid-input, only >> hid-multitouch... So we are already doing what you are proposing?.. >> >> > >> > However, I really believe this might only be required for a handful of >> > devices, and probably only touchscreens. So I would be tempted to not >> > make it default and see how many bug reports we have. >> >> Up to you but it is hard to detect for users. If just sometimes there >> are stray clicks... > > fwiw, from my POV, if you give me MT_TOOL_PALM in the same frame as the > ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID -1 I can work that into libinput to do the right thing. This would be a one line change in the kernel, so you got my attention :) > Not 100% whether that already works anyway but probably not. I'd prefer it > being fixed in the kernel though, less work for me :) What do you mean by "fixed"? Is it incorrect to send a tool while tracking ID is set to -1? >From what I read on multi-touch-protocol.rst this shouldn't be violating the protocol, and this would save quite a mess in the kernel in which we need to add an artificial event in the queue for the release. Cheers, Benjamin -- 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
