Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Ritz <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] USB touch screen driver, all-in-one | Date | Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:50:15 +0100 |
| |
On Friday 17 March 2006 03.46, Lanslott Gish wrote: > On 3/16/06, Daniel Ritz <daniel.ritz-ml@swissonline.ch> wrote: > > On Wednesday 15 March 2006 05.30, Lanslott Gish wrote: > > > did you mean like that? thx. > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Lanslott Gish > > > =================================================================== > > > --- linux-2.6.16-rc6.patched/drivers/usb/input/usbtouchscreen.c > > > +++ linux-2.6.16-rc6/drivers/usb/input/usbtouchscreen.c > > > @@ -49,6 +49,13 @@ > > > static int swap_xy; > > > module_param(swap_xy, bool, 0644); > > > MODULE_PARM_DESC(swap_xy, "If set X and Y axes are swapped."); > > > +static int swap_x; > > > +module_param(swap_x, bool, 0644); > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(swap_x, "If set X axe is swapped before XY swapped."); > > > +static int swap_y; > > > +module_param(swap_y, bool, 0644); > > > +MODULE_PARM_DESC(swap_y, "If set Y axe is swapped before XY swapped."); > > > + > > > > > (i prefer invert_x and invert_y...) > > > "invert" is great, thx. > evtouch(X11 driver) called these swap_x and swap_y >
i think i drop it alltogether. as greg already mentioned it should be sysfs attributes. ( besides it's completely doable in userspace. and evtouch can do it. )
> > > > > > /* device specifc data/functions */ > > > @@ -224,13 +231,17 @@ > > > * PanJit Part > > > */ > > > #ifdef CONFIG_USB_TOUCHSCREEN_PANJIT > > > + > > > static int panjit_read_data(char *pkt, int *x, int *y, int *touch, int *press) > > > { > > > - *x = pkt[1] | (pkt[2] << 8); > > > - *y = pkt[3] | (pkt[4] << 8); > > > + *x = (pkt[1] & 0x0F) | ((pkt[2]& 0xFF) << 8); > > > + *y = (pkt[3] & 0x0F) | ((pkt[4]& 0xFF) << 8); > > > > that just can't be right. you probably mean > > + *y = pkt[3] | ((pkt[4] & 0x0F) << 8); > > > > otherwise you mask out bits 4-7. but you want to limit it to 12 bits... > > (btw. no need for the & 0xFF mask since *pkt is char) > > > > you are right, sorry for my fault. the truely way is > > + *x = (pkt[1] & 0xFF) | ((pkt[2] & 0x0F) << 8); > + *y = (pkt[3] & 0xFF) | ((pkt[4] & 0x0F) << 8); > > still need 12 bits( 0x0FFF) and the masks to avoid get negative.
my latest patch has it right. and no, you don't need the mask for the lower 8 bits, only for the upper 4.
> > > BTW, may i also suggest add more module_param to max_x, max_y, min_x, min_y ? > i think these options is useful, too.
no chance. (and if i remember correctly it's possible via evdev ioctl)
rgds -daniel - 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/
| |