Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757183Ab1CIKPD (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:15:03 -0500 Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:61222 "EHLO mail-ww0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757141Ab1CIKPB (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Mar 2011 05:15:01 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=reQdDdy1dioflbEKOc7JGQpL8aZf1y9DwekbQuHouSIcPg64opz4uRYGJ9FFkoDzAI luYG2630m1xtZV7R66wHKRsa3UaPRCYh9+yuXbtkyaPR3ZDjuqaig/gU5ldY/1X70Yt5 PXVpnCsQ69V6pLsn+T9VAFkPxJrIMvGwZvuUk= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110309093809.GA3980@polaris.bitmath.org> References: <1299601979-4871-1-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@enac.fr> <1299601979-4871-2-git-send-email-benjamin.tissoires@enac.fr> <20110309084222.GA3569@polaris.bitmath.org> <20110309093809.GA3980@polaris.bitmath.org> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 11:14:59 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AhbZaECd6Q5hxI3qCffiAM_3z5E Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] hid-multitouch: Auto detection of maxcontacts From: Benjamin Tissoires To: Henrik Rydberg Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Jiri Kosina , Stephane Chatty , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2358 Lines: 60 On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:38, Henrik Rydberg wrote: > On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 10:03:45AM +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 09:42, Henrik Rydberg wrote: >> > Hi Benjamin, >> > >> >> This patch enables support of autodetection of maxcontacts. >> >> We can still manually provide maxcontact in case the device >> >> lies on it. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Tissoires >> > >> > It seems quite alright to let the classes contain the expected number >> > of contacts, so I do not really see the reason for that part of the >> > patch. How about keeping the maxcontacts in the class, and then do >> > max(hid-provided-maxcontacts, default-maxcontacts)? >> > >> >> Yep, I've got three particular reasons: >> - 3M: there are two devices now, 1968 and 2256. The first one is a 10 >> touches only, whereas the second one is a 60 touches. > > Right, so increasing the number of touches based on device information > seems like a good idea. So the patch is useful. > >> - autodetection of multitouch devices. I have some patches on my tree >> (that we do not want to go upstream right now for some reasons) that >> allows us to plug any unknown multitouch devices and to let >> hid-multitouch handling it. As most of the devices are 2 touches only, >> and as the generic way to work with a multitouch devices is to iterate >> over all the slots, using 10 touches by default infers a lot of >> instructions that can be avoided. > > Right, so keeping the default number of touches per class seems like a > good idea. That's the way the patch works: we can still manually provide the maxcontact per class, but if it's not needed (the device sends proper value), then we can skip it. > >> - finally, it simplifies the writing of the new CLS (we just need to >> know how the device works to add the right quirks). > > Right, we always need to know how the device works. :-) What I meant was the dynamic behavior of the device, not the static capabilities. ;) Am I right if I take your reply as an Ack? Cheers, Benjamin -- 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/