> I see this event codes in a test device mock in libinput, but I wonder > if we could/should use BTN_9 instead of skiping a few IDs here. > > Honestly, I don't now what should be the right approach in this case, > let's see if someone else comments on this topic. I forgot about BTN_9, that should be an easy change. I already merged changes upstream in systemd/udev to mark devices with these buttons correctly - so, sunken cost and all that :-) > I think that you could use uclogic_params_parse_ugee_v2_desc() and > change the number of buttons in the template afterwards. It'd avoid > some code duplication. Yeah I think that's what I'll do, I was thinking of reusing it and just overriding parameters if needed. > There are some XP-Pen PRO devices handled by the other init function. > Maybe we could rename this function to something more specific to your > device. Ah okay, it's pretty specific to this device anyway - so I'll rename the function so it's clear what it's purpose is. I wasn't sure if future XP-PEN Pro work was going to reuse this function, but I guess we'll rename it if that happens! > You can use "uclogic_ugee_v2_probe_endpoint" here. Good catch! Will change. > User-space lacks support for dials, but, with this descriptor, would it > be possible to differenciate between the 2 dials to, for example, > assign them different actions? Or would them be exposed as the same > dial? > > I have no idea how would user-space see this, but it'd interesting to > see how libinput handles it. Currently userspace sees this as REL_WHEEL and REL_HWHEEL, but like mentioned libinput currently rejects mouse wheel events from tablet pads. The fact that they previously worked before these patches is because udev misclassified the pad device as a mouse. I'm working upstream to expose dials on tablet pads in libinput (I just got the green light so I'll be working on that shortly!) > You can cherry-pick my patch refactoring this variables and send it as > part of your series. I think that it might help maintainers with the > merge and it'd also fix the problem reported by the test robot. Ooh good point, I didn't even consider doing that. Next version will have it split up into two then.
