Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:19:10 +0200 | From | Éric Piel <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/6] Input: elantech - use firmware provided x, y ranges |
| |
Op 19-08-11 11:47, JJ Ding schreef: > Hi Dmitry, > > Sorry for late reply. I missed this one somehow. > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 00:47:56 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov<dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:57:05AM +0800, JJ Ding wrote: >>> + >>> + i = (etd->fw_version> 0x020800&& >>> + etd->fw_version< 0x020900) ? 1 : 2; >>> + *x_max = (etd->capabilities[1] - i) * 64; >>> + *y_max = (etd->capabilities[2] - i) * 64; >>> + *y_2ft_max = (*y_max - i) * 64 / 4; >> >> Hmm, we should have the same range for ST and MT data and scale MT data >> if it has lower resolution to match ST. > So I should just remove y_2ft_max and those ETP_2FT_XXXX in elantech.h, > and do the scale in elantech_report_absolute_v2? Humm, yes, I think what Dmitry wants is that both ABS_MT_POSITION_Y and ABS_Y have the same min and max, and the scaling is done when reading the data. However, it seems this already what is being tried to be done, excepted that I mess it up in the latest patch set I sent. I just noticed it now, sorry :-S
You can see in elantech_report_absolute_v2() in case of 2 fingers: The part for updating ABS_X, ABS_Y is correct: input_report_abs(dev, ABS_X, x1 << 2); input_report_abs(dev, ABS_Y, y1 << 2);
But I forgot to do the same for MT: elantech_report_semi_mt_data(dev, fingers, x1, y1, x2, y2); That should be: elantech_report_semi_mt_data(dev, fingers, x1 << 2, y1 << 2, x2 << 2, y2 << 2);
Or, even more clean, just move the shift directly into the computation, like: y1 = etd->y_max - ((((packet[0] & 0x20) << 3) | packet[2]) << 2);
In such case you can drop completely y_2ft_max, and move the input_report_abs() outside of the switch.
In addition, I have a couple of more remarks on this patch: > + *x_max = (etd->capabilities[1] - i) * 64; > + *y_max = (etd->capabilities[2] - i) * 64; > + *y_2ft_max = (*y_max - i) * 64 / 4; This last line is probably wrong as I think it should be: *y_2ft_max = *y_max / 4;
But if you drop y_2ft_max, that shouldn't matter anymore! > + case 1: > + *x_min = ETP_XMIN_V1; > + *y_min = ETP_YMIN_V1; > + *x_max = ETP_XMAX_V1; > + *y_max = ETP_YMAX_V1; > + break; > + > + case 2: > + if (etd->fw_version == 0x020800 || > + etd->fw_version == 0x020b00 || > + etd->fw_version == 0x020030) { > + *x_min = ETP_XMIN_V2; > + *y_min = ETP_YMIN_V2; > + *x_max = ETP_XMAX_V2; > + *y_max = ETP_YMAX_V2; > + *y_2ft_max = ETP_2FT_YMAX; > + break; > + }
Actually these variables are defined as: #define ETP_YMAX_V2 ( 768 - ETP_EDGE_FUZZ_V2)
I'd suggest to remove trying being too clever and remove the ETP_EDGE_FUZZ_V2. They should be just the raw resolution of the device. Otherwise, they can cause underflow on the Y axis.
Finally, a minor style suggestion, in "case 2:" above, only use one single "break;" and put the two part in a complete "if-else" statement, with xmin, y_min all explicit. E.g.: case 2: if (etd->fw_version == 0x020800 || etd->fw_version == 0x020b00 || etd->fw_version == 0x020030) { *x_min = ETP_XMIN_V2; *y_min = ETP_YMIN_V2; *x_max = ETP_XMAX_V2; *y_max = ETP_YMAX_V2; } else { i = (etd->fw_version > 0x020800 && etd->fw_version < 0x020900) ? 1 : 2; *x_min = 0; *y_min = 0; *x_max = (etd->capabilities[1] - i) * 64; *y_max = (etd->capabilities[2] - i) * 64; } break;
> If so, I will create another patch for this change. > If you could send a new version of this patch with these changes, it'd be great :-)
Cheers, Éric -- 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/
| |