lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] xen/input: add multi-touch support
From
Date
Ping

On 06/08/2017 09:45 AM, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
> Hi, Dmitry!
>
> On 06/07/2017 07:56 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:06:56PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko wrote:
>>> Hi, Dmitry!
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2017 07:37 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 03:50:20PM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Dmitry!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/30/2017 08:51 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 09:40:36AM +0300, Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi, Dmitry!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 04/21/2017 05:10 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Oleksandr,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 02:38:04PM +0300, Oleksandr
>>>>>>>> Andrushchenko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Extend xen_kbdfront to provide multi-touch support
>>>>>>>>> to unprivileged domains.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>>>>>>>> <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c | 142
>>>>>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 140 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>>>>>> b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>>>>>> index 01c27b4c3288..e5d064aaa237 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/errno.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/module.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/input.h>
>>>>>>>>> +#include <linux/input/mt.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>>>>>>>>> #include <asm/xen/hypervisor.h>
>>>>>>>>> @@ -34,11 +35,14 @@
>>>>>>>>> struct xenkbd_info {
>>>>>>>>> struct input_dev *kbd;
>>>>>>>>> struct input_dev *ptr;
>>>>>>>>> + struct input_dev *mtouch;
>>>>>>>>> struct xenkbd_page *page;
>>>>>>>>> int gref;
>>>>>>>>> int irq;
>>>>>>>>> struct xenbus_device *xbdev;
>>>>>>>>> char phys[32];
>>>>>>>>> + /* current MT slot/contact ID we are injecting events in */
>>>>>>>>> + int mtouch_cur_contact_id;
>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>> enum { KPARAM_X, KPARAM_Y, KPARAM_CNT };
>>>>>>>>> @@ -47,6 +51,12 @@ module_param_array(ptr_size, int, NULL, 0444);
>>>>>>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
>>>>>>>>> "Pointing device width, height in pixels (default
>>>>>>>>> 800,600)");
>>>>>>>>> +enum { KPARAM_MT_X, KPARAM_MT_Y, KPARAM_MT_CNT };
>>>>>>>>> +static int mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_CNT] = { XENFB_WIDTH,
>>>>>>>>> XENFB_HEIGHT };
>>>>>>>>> +module_param_array(mtouch_size, int, NULL, 0444);
>>>>>>>>> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
>>>>>>>>> + "Multi-touch device width, height in pixels (default
>>>>>>>>> 800,600)");
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> Why do you need separate module parameters for multi-touch device?
>>>>>>> please see below
>>>>>>>>> static int xenkbd_remove(struct xenbus_device *);
>>>>>>>>> static int xenkbd_connect_backend(struct xenbus_device *,
>>>>>>>>> struct xenkbd_info *);
>>>>>>>>> static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
>>>>>>>>> @@ -100,6 +110,60 @@ static irqreturn_t input_handler(int rq,
>>>>>>>>> void *dev_id)
>>>>>>>>> input_report_rel(dev, REL_WHEEL,
>>>>>>>>> -event->pos.rel_z);
>>>>>>>>> break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_TYPE_MTOUCH:
>>>>>>>>> + dev = info->mtouch;
>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(!dev))
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + if (unlikely(event->mtouch.contact_id !=
>>>>>>>>> + info->mtouch_cur_contact_id)) {
>>>>>>>> Why is this unlikely? Does contact ID changes once in 1000
>>>>>>>> packets or
>>>>>>>> even less?
>>>>>>> Mu assumption was that regardless of the fact that we are
>>>>>>> multi-touch
>>>>>>> device still single touches will come in more frequently
>>>>>>> But I can remove *unlikely* if my assumption is not correct
>>>>>> I think the normal expectation is that "unlikely" is supposed for
>>>>>> something that happens once in a blue moon, so I'd rather remove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> agree, removed "unlikely"
>>>>>>>>> + info->mtouch_cur_contact_id =
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.contact_id;
>>>>>>>>> + input_mt_slot(dev, event->mtouch.contact_id);
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + switch (event->mtouch.event_type) {
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_DOWN:
>>>>>>>>> + input_mt_report_slot_state(dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER,
>>>>>>>>> + true);
>>>>>> Should we establish tool event? We have MT_TOOL_PEN, etc.
>>>>> I think that for multi-touch MT_TOOL_FINGER is enough
>>>>> any reason we would also want MT_TOOL_PEN here?
>>>> Why would not you? Let's say you have a drawing application running in
>>>> guest that can make use of tool types. Why would not you want to
>>>> tell it
>>>> that the tool user is currently using is in fact a pen and not finger?
>>> But it is a finger :) we are multi-touch, not multi pen
>> So for tablets that support both touch and stylus you would export them
>> as 2 separate devices?
> this could be done in different ways, but please see on
> pen support below
>>> Besides, that, if I am about to implement pen support
>>> (which I still not convinced we really need), how will I
>>> do that?
>> I do not know what you have on the backend side, but roughly speaking if
>> you detect a pen/stylus you let your guest know that the contact is not
>> a finger, but pen. How you plumb it through is up to you.
> we do not detect pen, only finger at the moment
> and the existing protocol has no means to tell
> type of the tool used, everything is supposed to
> be "finger", so front-end has no possibility to
> tell one tool from another
>>> My understanding is that I need 2 different slots to report
>>> the same coordinates for finger and pen. This is because
>>> input_mt_report_slot_state has a check that if tool has
>>> changed for the current slot then a new tracking ID is set.
>>> Do I also need to allocate twice more slots, so I can
>>> report 2 * num_contacts events simultaneously (one for finger
>>> and another for pen)?
>>> That said, I believe we can start with multi-touch support
>>> and if need be then add pen support as a separate change,
>>> does that make sense for you?
>>>>> (I guess MT_TOOL_PALM is not appropriate anyways)
>>>> Depends on if you do straight pass-through from the host side or
>>>> not. If
>>>> you stack does palm rejection before passing the data through then you
>>>> would not see MT_TOOL_PALM in guest.
>>> the protocol used between guest and host is a generic one,
>>> not using Linux types/constants/events.
>> It does not have to use Linux types to support the concept of different
>> tools.
> agree
>>> So, no PALM/TOOL support is in place
>> OK, that is fair. The pen support is definitely not a hard requirement.
> so, can we live with finger at this point, no pen?
>> I was just wondering if you considered or have plans for adding that.
> well, honestly, we do not need pen at the moment,
> but we did add multi-touch support into Xen protocols
> and if pen required it can be done as a separate
> change to both protocol and front/back ends
>> Or
>> if you want to review the protocol so it can be easily added in the
>> future. For example you could have tool type to be part of
>> XENKBD_MT_EV_DOWN event.
> protocol did a long way to get into Xen/Kernel... :)
> of course, this can be done, but I would prefer it is
> added when it is needed, not only that we have this functionality
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_X,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_x);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_y);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_X,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_x);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_y);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_UP:
>>>>>>>>> + input_mt_report_slot_state(dev, MT_TOOL_FINGER,
>>>>>>>>> + false);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_MOTION:
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_X,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_x);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_y);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_X,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_x);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.pos.abs_y);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_SYN:
>>>>>>>>> + input_mt_sync_frame(dev);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_SHAPE:
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.shape.major);
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MINOR,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.shape.minor);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + case XENKBD_MT_EV_ORIENT:
>>>>>>>>> + input_event(dev, EV_ABS, ABS_MT_ORIENTATION,
>>>>>>>>> + event->mtouch.u.orientation);
>>>>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + /* only report syn when requested */
>>>>>>>>> + if (event->mtouch.event_type != XENKBD_MT_EV_SYN)
>>>>>>>>> + dev = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> if (dev)
>>>>>>>>> input_sync(dev);
>>>>>>>>> @@ -115,9 +179,9 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct
>>>>>>>>> xenbus_device *dev,
>>>>>>>>> const struct xenbus_device_id *id)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> int ret, i;
>>>>>>>>> - unsigned int abs;
>>>>>>>>> + unsigned int abs, touch;
>>>>>>>>> struct xenkbd_info *info;
>>>>>>>>> - struct input_dev *kbd, *ptr;
>>>>>>>>> + struct input_dev *kbd, *ptr, *mtouch;
>>>>>>>>> info = kzalloc(sizeof(*info), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>>>>>>> if (!info) {
>>>>>>>>> @@ -152,6 +216,17 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct
>>>>>>>>> xenbus_device *dev,
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> + touch = xenbus_read_unsigned(dev->nodename,
>>>>>>>>> + XENKBD_FIELD_FEAT_MTOUCH, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + if (touch) {
>>>>>>>>> + ret = xenbus_write(XBT_NIL, dev->nodename,
>>>>>>>>> + XENKBD_FIELD_REQ_MTOUCH, "1");
>>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>>>>> + pr_warning("xenkbd: can't request multi-touch");
>>>>>>>>> + touch = 0;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> /* keyboard */
>>>>>>>>> kbd = input_allocate_device();
>>>>>>>>> if (!kbd)
>>>>>>>>> @@ -208,6 +283,67 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct
>>>>>>>>> xenbus_device *dev,
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> info->ptr = ptr;
>>>>>>>>> + /* multi-touch device */
>>>>>>>>> + if (touch) {
>>>>>>>>> + int num_cont, width, height;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch = input_allocate_device();
>>>>>>>>> + if (!mtouch)
>>>>>>>>> + goto error_nomem;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + num_cont = xenbus_read_unsigned(info->xbdev->nodename,
>>>>>>>>> + XENKBD_FIELD_MT_NUM_CONTACTS,
>>>>>>>>> + 1);
>>>>>> Should we refuse MT devices with number of contacts less than 2?
>>>>> we can, but I see no harm in 1. what is more, this may
>>>>> allow guests to emulate more pointing devices
>>>>> but, if you insist, then I will add appropriate code to
>>>>> reject if number of contacts is less then 2
>> The question is if you are planning to keep the single-touch interface
>> or you will migrate everything to multi-touch.
> I will keep single touch as legacy, but in our use-cases
> we are more focusing on using multi-touch devices.
> but even with number of contacts == 1 it can still be
> useful as it gives more flexibility in configuring guest OS
> If you insist that num contacts == 1 must be removed,
> please let me know and I will handle that
>>>>>>>>> + width = xenbus_read_unsigned(info->xbdev->nodename,
>>>>>>>>> + XENKBD_FIELD_MT_WIDTH,
>>>>>>>>> + XENFB_WIDTH);
>>>>>>>>> + height = xenbus_read_unsigned(info->xbdev->nodename,
>>>>>>>>> + XENKBD_FIELD_MT_HEIGHT,
>>>>>>>>> + XENFB_HEIGHT);
>>>>>>>> Curious why you need separate parameters here too...
>>>>>>> This is because mt parameters are different from ptr
>>>>>>> in a way that they are configurable per front driver's
>>>>>>> instance rather than per backend, e.g. in XenStore:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /local/domain/0/backend/vkbd/1/0/width = "1920"
>>>>>>> /local/domain/0/backend/vkbd/1/0/height = "1080"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/0/multi-touch-width = "1920"
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/0/multi-touch-height = "1080"
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/0/multi-touch-num-contacts = "10"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/1/multi-touch-width = "800"
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/1/multi-touch-height = "600"
>>>>>>> /local/domain/1/device/vkbd/1/multi-touch-num-contacts = "3"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The main reason for such configuration is that you can
>>>>>>> configure multiple mt input devices even for the same guest
>>>>>>> with different resolutions which may not match those
>>>>>>> configured for ptr.
>>>>>>> (In my use-case I use new displif protocol [1] in conjunction
>>>>>>> with mt input devices and the corresponding backend is not
>>>>>>> QEMU's xenfb)
>>>>>> I see.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to module parameters, I added those to be consistent with
>>>>>>> ptr device. Do you think we can live without them and
>>>>>>> do you want me to remove them?
>>>>>> Yes, I think we better. I am also confused by the way you are
>>>>>> handling
>>>>>> the module parameters. It looks to me you update them with data
>>>>>> passed
>>>>> >from the backend, but never use the data...
>>>>> I have removed module parameters (the only use of those
>>>>> was to be able to see configured width and height on
>>>>> guest side, but this is minor)
>>>> evtest would show it to you. Or you can query input device yourself
>>>> (EVIOCGABS iotcl).
>>> yes, if embedded system (which is my target) has evtest
>>> but it definitely does have ioctl though
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch->name = "Xen Virtual Multi-touch";
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch->phys = info->phys;
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch->id.bustype = BUS_PCI;
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch->id.vendor = 0x5853;
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch->id.product = 0xfffd;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + __set_bit(EV_ABS, mtouch->evbit);
>>>>>>>>> + __set_bit(EV_KEY, mtouch->evbit);
>>>>>>>>> + __set_bit(BTN_TOUCH, mtouch->keybit);
>>>> Please make it
>>>> input_set_capability(mtouch, EV_KEY, BTN_TOUCH);
>>>>
>>>> and drop all __set_bit()s.
>>> done, thank you
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_X,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, width, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, height, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_PRESSURE,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, 255, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_MT_TOUCH_MAJOR,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, 255, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_MT_POSITION_X,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, width, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_MT_POSITION_Y,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, height, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> + input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_MT_PRESSURE,
>>>>>>>>> + 0, 255, 0, 0);
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + input_mt_init_slots(mtouch, num_cont, 0);
>>>>>> We need error handling here.
>>>>> done
>>>>>> Also, it would be nice if we set INPUT_MT_*
>>>>>> flags here, so that userspace had better chance of figuring how to
>>>>>> handle the device.
>>>>> done, I will use INPUT_MT_DIRECT | INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED
>>>> Does that mean that your backend does not reliably report release of
>>>> contacts?
>>> there is a ring buffer between host and guest,
>>> so there is always a possibility (rather small I believe)
>>> that the buffer overruns. Do you think I need INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED or
>>> we can live without it?
>> Again, it depends on your backend behavior. Do you report all slots
>> repeatedly for every packet or you report only changed slots?
> we report events repeatedly, so I think we can live
> w/o _DROP_UNUSED
>> Thanks.
>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_X] = width;
>>>>>>>>> + mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_Y] = height;
>>>>>>>>> + info->mtouch_cur_contact_id = -1;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + ret = input_register_device(mtouch);
>>>>>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>>>>>> + input_free_device(mtouch);
>>>>>>>>> + xenbus_dev_fatal(info->xbdev, ret,
>>>>>>>>> + "input_register_device(mtouch)");
>>>>>>>>> + goto error;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> + info->mtouch_cur_contact_id = -1;
>>>>>>>>> + info->mtouch = mtouch;
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> ret = xenkbd_connect_backend(dev, info);
>>>>>>>>> if (ret < 0)
>>>>>>>>> goto error;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -240,6 +376,8 @@ static int xenkbd_remove(struct
>>>>>>>>> xenbus_device *dev)
>>>>>>>>> input_unregister_device(info->kbd);
>>>>>>>>> if (info->ptr)
>>>>>>>>> input_unregister_device(info->ptr);
>>>>>>>>> + if (info->mtouch)
>>>>>>>>> + input_unregister_device(info->mtouch);
>>>>>>>>> free_page((unsigned long)info->page);
>>>>>>>>> kfree(info);
>>>>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>> For your convenience I am attaching the changes I am about
>>>>> to put into v1 of the series:
>>>>> - remove unlikely
>>>>> - remove module parameters
>>>>> - error handling for input_mt_init_slots
>>>>> - let userspace better chance of figuring how to handle the device
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>> Oleksandr
>>>>> From e76506c55846e2bb4ccbafa430642e368643e51d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>>>>> 2001
>>>>> From: Oleksandr Andrushchenko <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>> Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:49:58 +0300
>>>>> Subject: [PATCH] Fix: remove unlikely Fix: remove module paramters
>>>>> Fix: error
>>>>> handling for input_mt_init_slots Fix: let userspace better
>>>>> chance of figuring
>>>>> how to handle the device
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Andrushchenko
>>>>> <oleksandr_andrushchenko@epam.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>> b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>> index 8266ef948a06..273d786a19cd 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/xen-kbdfront.c
>>>>> @@ -51,12 +51,6 @@ module_param_array(ptr_size, int, NULL, 0444);
>>>>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
>>>>> "Pointing device width, height in pixels (default 800,600)");
>>>>> -enum { KPARAM_MT_X, KPARAM_MT_Y, KPARAM_MT_CNT };
>>>>> -static int mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_CNT] = { XENFB_WIDTH,
>>>>> XENFB_HEIGHT };
>>>>> -module_param_array(mtouch_size, int, NULL, 0444);
>>>>> -MODULE_PARM_DESC(ptr_size,
>>>>> - "Multi-touch device width, height in pixels (default 800,600)");
>>>>> -
>>>>> static int xenkbd_remove(struct xenbus_device *);
>>>>> static int xenkbd_connect_backend(struct xenbus_device *, struct
>>>>> xenkbd_info *);
>>>>> static void xenkbd_disconnect_backend(struct xenkbd_info *);
>>>>> @@ -114,8 +108,8 @@ static irqreturn_t input_handler(int rq, void
>>>>> *dev_id)
>>>>> dev = info->mtouch;
>>>>> if (unlikely(!dev))
>>>>> break;
>>>>> - if (unlikely(event->mtouch.contact_id !=
>>>>> - info->mtouch_cur_contact_id)) {
>>>>> + if (event->mtouch.contact_id !=
>>>>> + info->mtouch_cur_contact_id) {
>>>>> info->mtouch_cur_contact_id =
>>>>> event->mtouch.contact_id;
>>>>> input_mt_slot(dev, event->mtouch.contact_id);
>>>>> @@ -327,10 +321,15 @@ static int xenkbd_probe(struct xenbus_device
>>>>> *dev,
>>>>> input_set_abs_params(mtouch, ABS_MT_PRESSURE,
>>>>> 0, 255, 0, 0);
>>>>> - input_mt_init_slots(mtouch, num_cont, 0);
>>>>> + ret = input_mt_init_slots(mtouch, num_cont,
>>>>> + INPUT_MT_DIRECT | INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + input_free_device(mtouch);
>>>>> + xenbus_dev_fatal(info->xbdev, ret,
>>>>> + "input_mt_init_slots");
>>>>> + goto error;
>>>>> + }
>>>>> - mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_X] = width;
>>>>> - mtouch_size[KPARAM_MT_Y] = height;
>>>>> info->mtouch_cur_contact_id = -1;
>>>>> ret = input_register_device(mtouch);
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.7.4
>>>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Oleksandr
> Dmitry, thank you for comments
> The bottom line I see is:
> - no support for PEN tool at the moment
> - num contacts == 1 is OK
> - I will not use INPUT_MT_DROP_UNUSED
>
> If the above is ok to you, then I will send another version of the
> series (BTW, can I use your RB for the first patch which
> removes hard-codes?)
>
> Thank you,
> Oleksandr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-06-19 12:01    [W:0.130 / U:1.004 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site