Hi Benjamin, On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 3:35 PM Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 2:19 PM Angela Czubak <acz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > . > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:57 PM Benjamin Tissoires > > <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Angela, > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:25 PM Angela Czubak <acz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Benjamin, Hi Jiri, > > > > > > > > any thoughts on this patch? > > > > > > Sorry for taking too long to answer. I saw the patch coming in while > > > coming back last week, and could not process it, and completely forgot > > > about it. > > > > > > > If you believe that the userspace input stack should be a better place > > > > to solve this kind of issue, please let me know. > > > > > > This is definitely not userspace to process those specificities, as > > > far as I understand. However... I don't understand the bug very well > > > :/ > > > > > > more inlined below: > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Angela > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 4:45 PM Angela Czubak <acz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ilitek touchscreens 016E and 016F repeat last finger position after it has > > > > > left the surface of the device. > > > > > We send BTN_TOUCH=0 and ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID=-1 with the first repeated > > > > > slot as this may mean that the finger has been lifted. > > > > > The touchscreen is not actually too sensitive and this would > > > > > modify the behaviour of the on-screen keyboard, for instance holding the > > > > > backspace key might be sometimes interpreted as removing a single character > > > > > only. Add counter of repeated frames and if it is significantly big then > > > > > assume the finger actually remains stationary. > > > > > > This commit is really confusing to me. This description is mixing > > > symptoms from before the patch, behaviour from after and userspace > > > which doesn't mean a lot here not knowing what is the problem. > > > > > > What is the exact problem? > > > > The device delays reporting finger lift off, instead it repeats its > > last report with only the scantime updated. > > I would interpret such events as meaning that the finger is present > > but has stopped moving, which > > is not the case, actually. > > > > When it comes to ChromeOS userspace input stack it seems that those > > events are actually ignored, but the > > problem is that the final event, i.e. the finger lit off is reported > > significantly late, so if the user is moving > > their finger to scroll the contents of the screen it immediately stops > > once the finger leaves the surface. > > However, the desired behaviour is for the scroll to continue, i.e. > > they should observe something called fling. > > The problem is that since this last event is delayed the scrolling stops. > > Because the last event is so late, our window, over which we calculate > > scroll speed, consists of just one > > single event, i.e. we cannot calculate any movement velocity so we > > assume it is zero. > > I tried to increase the window, but it appears that the delay is large > > enough for a human eye to notice that > > the scrolling stops (as there are no new events for a while) and then > > it restarts again (once the actual > > lift off event is noticed, BTN_TOUCH=0 and ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID=-1). > > > > I find it more difficult to solve at userspace level and we would like > > the fling (i.e. scrolling that continues > > after the finger has left the surface) to be fluent. > > OK, thanks for the explanation. There are still a few bits that are > confusing to me: > > > > > > What events the device is sending? > > > > "Raw" events: > > > > https://gist.github.com/semihalf-czubak-angela/026072c013b4f883cb6adb7460b4d6ca > > > > So as you can see it repeats the last position etc. and the only thing > > changing is the scantime. > > > > This translates to input events (not that the data below is from > > another run, but you get the idea): > > > > https://gist.github.com/semihalf-czubak-angela/b957f7e464772bbdd95ddd814e84e5d9 > > But in both of these records, the last finger is reported 5 times, which > corresponds to the value of MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED. > Given that the device sends one report every 20 millisecs, you end up at > the exact same 0.1 seconds of delay, which makes me wonder about the > usefulness of the patch. > Well, let me rephrase then: this 0.1 is unfortunately very noticeable to a human eye. I know it shouldn't be much, but it actually causes the fling to stop, whereas a smooth behaviour/movement is expected. And with the patch the lift of is actually reported with the first repeated slot, it is just that after MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED the kernel actually starts sending the slot/touch information again. > > > > > What should be the expected kernel ouput? > > > > > > > Well, ideally: > > https://gist.github.com/semihalf-czubak-angela/4dd52c177372f8f0c2b4e5ada841ea95 > > > > So what helps is if > > > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 53 > > (ABS_MT_POSITION_X), value 4817 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 54 > > (ABS_MT_POSITION_Y), value 777 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 0 (ABS_X), value 4817 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 1 (ABS_Y), value 777 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 408000 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 416000 > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.496921, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 424000 > > Event: time 1643827301.496921, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.517923, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 432000 > > Event: time 1643827301.517923, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.535920, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 440000 > > Event: time 1643827301.535920, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.554943, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 57 > > (ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID), value -1 > > Event: time 1643827301.554943, type 1 (EV_KEY), code 330 (BTN_TOUCH), value 0 > > Event: time 1643827301.554943, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 448000 > > Event: time 1643827301.554943, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > > > becomes > > > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 53 > > (ABS_MT_POSITION_X), value 4817 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 54 > > (ABS_MT_POSITION_Y), value 777 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 0 (ABS_X), value 4817 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 1 (ABS_Y), value 777 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 408000 > > Event: time 1643827301.463888, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, type 3 (EV_ABS), code 57 > > (ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID), value -1 > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, type 1 (EV_KEY), code 330 (BTN_TOUCH), value 0 > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, type 4 (EV_MSC), code 5 > > (MSC_TIMESTAMP), value 416000 > > Event: time 1643827301.479920, -------------- SYN_REPORT ------------ > > Well, here, the timestamp says that you want the touch to come as soon > as there are 2 identical values, because it comes right after the last > modified event. This is doable, but that also means you might create > false releases while processing the events. > I am aware of that, hence I want to assume that if this repeats enough times the finger is actually stationary. Ideally I would like to have the fix in the firmware, but a patch in linux kernel seems easier for me :) > > > > > > > (bonus point for actually giving the events in the hid-recorder output > > > format [0] ;-P ) > > > > > > > Here you are: https://gist.github.com/semihalf-czubak-angela/eaaf73459c5c50f716016839fc368ab0 > > Heh, thanks :) > > > > > > FWIW, this driver is one of the few drivers in the HID stack to have > > > extended tests in hid-tools[0]. > > > I plan to merge that repo into the selftests subtree, but for now we > > > need to use this external repo. > > > > > > So I'd be pleased to see new tests added for that quirk because it > > > seems far from evident what is happening. > > > > > > > Ack, I will prepare something. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Angela Czubak <acz@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you think there is some better solution. > > > > > It felt to me that it would be more correct to solve it on kernel > > > > > driver level since this issue is device specific, but perhaps > > > > > there are some userspace input stacks that figured this problem out. > > > > > With Chromium OS Input Stack the final BTN_TOUCH=0 event comes > > > > > significantly late which causes hiccups or simply a scrolling fling > > > > > not to happen, since the input stack thinks the finger is still > > > > > in the same position and on the screen. > > > > > > If the device reports a wrong state, the kernel is the place to fix > > > it. However, as mentioned above I do not understand what is wrong > > > there by reading the description and the code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/hid/hid-ids.h | 2 + > > > > > drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c | 150 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > > 2 files changed, 149 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-ids.h b/drivers/hid/hid-ids.h > > > > > index 053853a891c5..cc85f547603c 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-ids.h > > > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-ids.h > > > > > @@ -630,6 +630,8 @@ > > > > > > > > > > #define USB_VENDOR_ID_ILITEK 0x222a > > > > > #define USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_MULTITOUCH 0x0001 > > > > > +#define USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_016E 0x016e > > > > > +#define USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_016F 0x016f > > > > > > > > > > #define USB_VENDOR_ID_INTEL_0 0x8086 > > > > > #define USB_VENDOR_ID_INTEL_1 0x8087 > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c b/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > > > > > index 99eabfb4145b..33cb5e5179c2 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > > > > > @@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > > > > #define MT_QUIRK_SEPARATE_APP_REPORT BIT(19) > > > > > #define MT_QUIRK_FORCE_MULTI_INPUT BIT(20) > > > > > #define MT_QUIRK_DISABLE_WAKEUP BIT(21) > > > > > +#define MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT BIT(22) > > > > > > > > > > #define MT_INPUTMODE_TOUCHSCREEN 0x02 > > > > > #define MT_INPUTMODE_TOUCHPAD 0x03 > > > > > @@ -103,12 +104,22 @@ struct mt_usages { > > > > > bool *confidence_state; /* is the touch made by a finger? */ > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > +struct mt_slot_state { > > > > > + __s32 x, y, cx, cy, p, w, h, a; > > > > > + __s32 contactid; /* the device ContactID assigned to this slot */ > > > > > + bool tip_state; /* is the touch valid? */ > > > > > + bool inrange_state; /* is the finger in proximity of the sensor? */ > > > > > + bool confidence_state; /* is the touch made by a finger? */ > > > > > +}; > > > > > > This raises a red flag here. I spent quite some time removing internal > > > slot states, and re-adding them means that something is wrong IMO. > > > (though if we can not do something else, we might just re-add them). > > > > > > > I wanted to compare against the report contents excluding the scantime. > > Perhaps I could do that on the hid report level, this way just seemed > > easier to implement. > > You can also use input_mt_get_value() and compare with the current value > before sending the value to the input stack. This way you do not need to > store the values once again. Thanks for suggesting that! > > > > > > > > + > > > > > struct mt_application { > > > > > struct list_head list; > > > > > unsigned int application; > > > > > unsigned int report_id; > > > > > struct list_head mt_usages; /* mt usages list */ > > > > > > > > > > + struct mt_slot_state *mt_slot_state; > > > > > + > > > > > __s32 quirks; > > > > > > > > > > __s32 *scantime; /* scantime reported */ > > > > > @@ -116,6 +127,11 @@ struct mt_application { > > > > > > > > > > __s32 *raw_cc; /* contact count in the report */ > > > > > int left_button_state; /* left button state */ > > > > > + bool touch_change; /* if touch change detected */ > > > > > + bool touched; /* if touch was present in the last > > > > > + * message > > > > > + */ > > > > > > So this is not per-touch, but per report? > > > > > > > I suppose it is actually per report, it is just that implementation > > per slot seemed easier. > > I could not reproduce the issue when using two fingers. > > Which makes a lot of sense: when you still have one finger on the > screen, the sensitive sensors are way much capable of detecting ghosts > because they have a baseline to compare too. > So I would suggest you enable that code only when you have 1 finger left > and that this finger is still. > > > > > > > > + int repeated_counter; /* how many times last frame repeated */ > > > > > unsigned int mt_flags; /* flags to pass to input-mt */ > > > > > > > > > > unsigned long *pending_palm_slots; /* slots where we reported palm > > > > > @@ -211,6 +227,7 @@ static void mt_post_parse(struct mt_device *td, struct mt_application *app); > > > > > #define MT_CLS_GOOGLE 0x0111 > > > > > #define MT_CLS_RAZER_BLADE_STEALTH 0x0112 > > > > > #define MT_CLS_SMART_TECH 0x0113 > > > > > +#define MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x 0x0114 > > > > > > > > > > #define MT_DEFAULT_MAXCONTACT 10 > > > > > #define MT_MAX_MAXCONTACT 250 > > > > > @@ -386,6 +403,15 @@ static const struct mt_class mt_classes[] = { > > > > > MT_QUIRK_CONTACT_CNT_ACCURATE | > > > > > MT_QUIRK_SEPARATE_APP_REPORT, > > > > > }, > > > > > + { .name = MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x, > > > > > + .quirks = MT_QUIRK_ALWAYS_VALID | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_IGNORE_DUPLICATES | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_HOVERING | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_CONTACT_CNT_ACCURATE | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_STICKY_FINGERS | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_WIN8_PTP_BUTTONS | > > > > > + MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT, > > > > > + .export_all_inputs = true }, > > > > > { } > > > > > }; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -783,7 +809,8 @@ static int mt_touch_input_mapping(struct hid_device *hdev, struct hid_input *hi, > > > > > case HID_DG_CONFIDENCE: > > > > > if ((cls->name == MT_CLS_WIN_8 || > > > > > cls->name == MT_CLS_WIN_8_FORCE_MULTI_INPUT || > > > > > - cls->name == MT_CLS_WIN_8_DISABLE_WAKEUP) && > > > > > + cls->name == MT_CLS_WIN_8_DISABLE_WAKEUP || > > > > > + cls->name == MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x) && > > > > > > Not something you should care about, but this long test of spaghetti > > > should likely be fixed into something way better at some point... > > > > > > > > (field->application == HID_DG_TOUCHPAD || > > > > > field->application == HID_DG_TOUCHSCREEN)) > > > > > app->quirks |= MT_QUIRK_CONFIDENCE; > > > > > @@ -948,7 +975,13 @@ static void mt_sync_frame(struct mt_device *td, struct mt_application *app, > > > > > input_event(input, EV_KEY, BTN_LEFT, app->left_button_state); > > > > > > > > > > input_mt_sync_frame(input); > > > > > - input_event(input, EV_MSC, MSC_TIMESTAMP, app->timestamp); > > > > > + if (app->quirks & MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT) { > > > > > + if (app->touch_change) > > > > > + input_event(input, EV_MSC, MSC_TIMESTAMP, app->timestamp); > > > > > + app->touch_change = false; > > > > > > Why filter out the timestamp? > > > > > > > I suppose lonely timestamps should not do any harm, I just wanted to > > avoid evtest etc. output > > where there is no change but the timestamp, it is kind of also > > remainder of my first approach where > > I just tried filtering this events out and see waiting for BTN_TOUCH=0 > > and ABS_MT_TRACKING_ID=-1 > > would be enough (it wasn't). > > So I wouldn't filter out the timestamps. Not sure how ChromeOS stack > behaves when we forward timestamps without a touch, but it should be > capable of ignoring them. Ack. > > > > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + input_event(input, EV_MSC, MSC_TIMESTAMP, app->timestamp); > > > > > + } > > > > > input_sync(input); > > > > > > > > > > mt_release_pending_palms(td, app, input); > > > > > @@ -993,6 +1026,60 @@ static int mt_touch_event(struct hid_device *hid, struct hid_field *field, > > > > > return 1; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > +static void mt_clear_slot_states(struct mt_slot_state *mt_slot_state, > > > > > + int size) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + int i; > > > > > + > > > > > + for (i = 0; i < size; i++) > > > > > + mt_slot_state[i].tip_state = 0; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static void mt_fill_slot_state(struct mt_slot_state *mt_slot_state, > > > > > + struct mt_usages *slot) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + mt_slot_state->x = *slot->x; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->y = *slot->y; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->cx = *slot->cx; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->cy = *slot->cy; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->p = *slot->p; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->w = *slot->w; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->h = *slot->h; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->a = *slot->a; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->contactid = *slot->contactid; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->tip_state = *slot->tip_state; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->inrange_state = *slot->inrange_state; > > > > > + mt_slot_state->confidence_state = *slot->confidence_state; > > > > > +} > > > > > + > > > > > +static bool mt_is_slot_state_equal(struct mt_slot_state *state1, > > > > > + struct mt_slot_state *state2) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + if (state1->x != state2->x) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->y != state2->y) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->cx != state2->cx) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->cy != state2->cy) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->p != state2->p) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->w != state2->w) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->a != state2->a) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->contactid != state2->contactid) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->tip_state != state2->tip_state) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->inrange_state != state2->inrange_state) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + if (state1->confidence_state != state2->confidence_state) > > > > > + return false; > > > > > + return true; > > > > > +} > > > > > > The input stack already filters out duplicated events. So I am not > > > sure we need to store the information here once again and test for it > > > here. > > > > > > > What I want to do is to "prematurely" report that the finger has been lifted. > > It is not that much about solely filtering out the duplicated events, > > I rather want to interpret > > such an event as a finger lift off. > > Yes, but see my remark above. Given that the input stack already caches > the values and that it is validated by the evdev recording you shared, > you should be able to apply the quirk just before calling the various > input_event() and comparing the current value of this last finger with > the ones in the input stack. This way, you do not need to keep tabs on > the various fingers. > > > > > > > > + > > > > > static int mt_process_slot(struct mt_device *td, struct input_dev *input, > > > > > struct mt_application *app, > > > > > struct mt_usages *slot) > > > > > @@ -1005,6 +1092,7 @@ static int mt_process_slot(struct mt_device *td, struct input_dev *input, > > > > > int active; > > > > > int slotnum; > > > > > int tool = MT_TOOL_FINGER; > > > > > + struct mt_slot_state state = {0}; > > > > > > > > > > if (!slot) > > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > @@ -1058,13 +1146,42 @@ static int mt_process_slot(struct mt_device *td, struct input_dev *input, > > > > > * lift-off as userspace will not be aware > > > > > * of non-confidence, so we need to split > > > > > * it into 2 events: active MT_TOOL_PALM > > > > > - * and a separate liftoff. > > > > > + * and a separate lift off. > > > > > */ > > > > > active = true; > > > > > set_bit(slotnum, app->pending_palm_slots); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > + if (app->quirks & MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT) { > > > > > + mt_fill_slot_state(&state, slot); > > > > > + /* Check if every field in the slot is the same as before. > > > > > + * Some touchscreens report the same position for several > > > > > + * frames even though the finger is no longer on the surface. > > > > > + * This is actually being recognised as the finger remaining in > > > > > + * one position, which causes scrolling to be stopped. > > > > > + * Ignore such packets so that the scrolling continues > > > > > + * and the touchscreen reports the finger liftoff. > > > > > > That part I understand better, but how is the device reporting such events? > > > If the touch is no longer there, we should have a bit that says it is > > > lifted, so we should simply just ignore the touch, no? > > > > > > > Well, I would actually like the touch panel manufacturers to answer that :-) > > Based on some comments in our source code it seems that some devices > > might delay synthesis of lift-off to reduce risks of noisy release, but I am not > > sure if it explains why they produce events in between. > > They produce events in between because they have to, or they are not > following the spec :) > I also think the main reason is that if they forget about sending an > event *and* that the touch continues to move after a few events, they > will see a release happening on the touch because that's what > STICKY_FINGER does (it's a copy of the behaviour from Windows FWIW). > > > > > > > > > > > + */ > > > > > + if (!mt_is_slot_state_equal(&state, > > > > > + &app->mt_slot_state[slotnum])) { > > > > > + app->touch_change |= (active || > > > > > + app->mt_slot_state[slotnum].tip_state); > > > > > + app->repeated_counter = 0; > > > > > + } else { > > > > > +#define MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED 5 > > > > > + if (app->repeated_counter < MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED) { > > > > > + active = false; > > > > > + if (app->touched) > > > > > + app->touch_change = true; > > > > > + } else { > > > > > + app->touch_change = true; > > > > > + } > > > > > + app->repeated_counter++; > > > > > > This is specific to one device, but I have seen device filtering in > > > hardware that reports the same steady data as long as the touch is > > > present. So 5 reports with the same data seem quite short. > > > > > > > It can be a larger number, I just believe that in this case it was enough. > > All 3 (or 4 maybe) recordings you shared showed that we received only 5 > duplications of events. So there is a case to be made around whether we > need this patch. > > What would be interesting is whether you can "emulate" that situation > without releasing the finger. If the raw data is noisy (to some extent > of course) and it's hard to have exactly twice the same sample for a > touch, then maybe we can assume that as soon as we get identical values > we can release. Maybe the false positive in that situation would be > better handled by the user that missing the fling. > Actually, I am able to receive the same report if I am very still and try not to move my finger. I wouldn't say it is easy but it is definitely possible and hence i wanted to use this upper bound so that using an on screen keyboard is not annoying (i.e. I want to be able to hold backspace key and erase more than just one sign). > > > > > Also, we do have devices which tend to forget to release slots, and > > > that's why we have MT_QUIRK_STICKY_FINGERS which release touches after > > > a while. > > > > Yeah, but the thing is that this specific device actually reports that > > the finger is still there, > > even though the finger has been lifted :-) > > I believe that MT_QUIRK_STICKY_FINGERS works when the device somehow > > fails to send a new report > > within some time after the previous one, so it does not solve the issue for us. > > It's not exactly the same case, but it still feels similar enough to > maybe be reused. > I am a little bit lost; MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x contains MT_QUIRK_STICKY_FINGERS. Based on the logs I provided, do you think that it does not work as expected? > Can you please give a shot at the following patch (and change the value > of MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED between 1 to 5)? > It doesn't use MT_QUIRK_STICKY_FINGERS but should be simnilar to what > you have here in a shorter version. > > --- > diff --git a/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c b/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > index 0dece608c023..cff4088e564a 100644 > --- a/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > +++ b/drivers/hid/hid-multitouch.c > @@ -77,6 +77,8 @@ MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); > > #define MT_BUTTONTYPE_CLICKPAD 0 > > +#define MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED 3 > + > enum latency_mode { > HID_LATENCY_NORMAL = 0, > HID_LATENCY_HIGH = 1, > @@ -128,6 +130,7 @@ struct mt_application { > * 1 means we should use a serial protocol > * > 1 means hybrid (multitouch) protocol > */ > + unsigned int repeated_touches; /* used when MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT */ > > __s32 dev_time; /* the scan time provided by the device */ > unsigned long jiffies; /* the frame's jiffies */ > @@ -1065,6 +1068,19 @@ static int mt_process_slot(struct mt_device *td, struct input_dev *input, > } > } > > + /* TODO: add test for the new quirk so we don't apply this for all devices */ > + if (active && app->num_expected == 1) { > + struct input_mt_slot *i_slot = &mt->slots[slotnum]; > + > + if (input_mt_get_value(i_slot, ABS_MT_POSITION_X) == *slot->x && > + input_mt_get_value(i_slot, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y) == *slot->y) { > + if (++app->repeated_touches >= MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED) > + active = false; > + } else { > + app->repeated_touches = 0; > + } > + } > + > input_mt_slot(input, slotnum); > input_mt_report_slot_state(input, tool, active); > if (active) { > --- > Observed results: MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED = 1: It solves this issue, no hiccup visible, but continuing to press a key on the screen does not produce the right effect, for instance backspace erases a single character only MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED = 2: Same as above MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED = 3: Small hiccup noticeable, problems with backspace as above MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED = 4: Small hiccup noticeable, problems with backspace as above MT_MAX_REPEATED_DROPPED = 5: Fling does not work (due to 0.1s delay and UI constants assuming that it is too long time to still calculate velocity) + problems with backspace > Cheers, > Benjamin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + } > > > > > + app->touched = active; > > > > > + app->mt_slot_state[slotnum] = state; > > > > > + } > > > > > input_mt_slot(input, slotnum); > > > > > input_mt_report_slot_state(input, tool, active); > > > > > if (active) { > > > > > @@ -1296,6 +1413,18 @@ static int mt_touch_input_configured(struct hid_device *hdev, > > > > > if (!app->pending_palm_slots) > > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > > > > > + if (app->quirks & MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT) { > > > > > + app->mt_slot_state = devm_kcalloc(&hi->input->dev, > > > > > + td->maxcontacts, > > > > > + sizeof(*app->mt_slot_state), > > > > > + GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + if (!app->mt_slot_state) > > > > > + return -ENOMEM; > > > > > + mt_clear_slot_states(app->mt_slot_state, td->maxcontacts); > > > > > + app->repeated_counter = 0; > > > > > + } > > > > > + > > > > > + > > > > > ret = input_mt_init_slots(input, td->maxcontacts, app->mt_flags); > > > > > if (ret) > > > > > return ret; > > > > > @@ -1676,6 +1805,12 @@ static void mt_release_contacts(struct hid_device *hid) > > > > > > > > > > list_for_each_entry(application, &td->applications, list) { > > > > > application->num_received = 0; > > > > > + if (application->quirks & MT_QUIRK_DROP_REPEATED_SLOT) { > > > > > + application->touch_change = false; > > > > > + mt_clear_slot_states(application->mt_slot_state, > > > > > + td->maxcontacts); > > > > > + application->repeated_counter = 0; > > > > > + } > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > @@ -2014,6 +2149,15 @@ static const struct hid_device_id mt_devices[] = { > > > > > MT_USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_ILITEK, > > > > > USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_MULTITOUCH) }, > > > > > > > > > > + /* Ilitek 106E/F touchscreen */ > > > > > + { .driver_data = MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x, > > > > > + HID_DEVICE(HID_BUS_ANY, HID_GROUP_MULTITOUCH_WIN_8, > > > > > + USB_VENDOR_ID_ILITEK, USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_016E) }, > > > > > + > > > > > + { .driver_data = MT_CLS_ILITEK_016x, > > > > > + HID_DEVICE(HID_BUS_ANY, HID_GROUP_MULTITOUCH_WIN_8, > > > > > + USB_VENDOR_ID_ILITEK, USB_DEVICE_ID_ILITEK_016F) }, > > > > > + > > > > > /* LG Melfas panel */ > > > > > { .driver_data = MT_CLS_LG, > > > > > HID_USB_DEVICE(USB_VENDOR_ID_LG, > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.35.1.1021.g381101b075-goog > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Benjamin > > > > > > [0] https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/libevdev/hid-tools > > > > > >
