Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756256Ab0LHTKA (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:10:00 -0500 Received: from adelie.canonical.com ([91.189.90.139]:54652 "EHLO adelie.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756224Ab0LHTJ7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:09:59 -0500 Message-ID: <4CFFD801.8060704@canonical.com> Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 11:09:53 -0800 From: Chase Douglas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Henrik Rydberg CC: Dmitry Torokhov , Jiri Kosina , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: mt: Add an envelope tool type References: <1291721340-22652-1-git-send-email-rydberg@euromail.se> <4CFFC3C2.1080905@canonical.com> <4CFFCD10.5030202@euromail.se> <4CFFD0BF.2020601@canonical.com> <4CFFD3FE.1090103@euromail.se> In-Reply-To: <4CFFD3FE.1090103@euromail.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1529 Lines: 36 On 12/08/2010 10:52 AM, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >> As you noted, what we are really interested here is a bounding >> rectangle. I think Ping has said that Wacom could provide something that >> is similar to a real convex hull, and mixing the two concepts together >> could cause another ambiguity like BTN_TOOL_DOUBLETAP :). > > > True, we should work towards avoiding such ambiguities. > >> I suggest merely renaming this to MT_TOOL_RECT to avoid confusion. This is really the main point I wanted to make, even though it was hidden among other things :). Do you have thoughts here? >> 2. We could provide for multiple simultaneous rects by using the value >> of the MT_TOOL_RECT property. The first rect would have value 0, the >> second would have value 1, etc. I don't know if this will ever be used >> since most devices will have real MT soon enough, but it wouldn't hurt >> to define this. > > I do think this is an unnecessary complication. It's not really any complication. I think we should define what the valid values are for MT_TOOL_{RECT,ENVELOPE} even if only one envelope is supported. Thus, I don't see why we shouldn't allow for multiple values for multiple rects. Hardware manufacturers always seem to surprise us with what they come up with too :). -- Chase -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/