Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 29 Aug 2006 11:12:46 -0400 | From | "Dmitry Torokhov" <> | Subject | Re: [RPC] OLPC tablet input driver. |
| |
On 8/29/06, Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 08:53:17AM -0400, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 8/29/06, Zephaniah E. Hull <warp@aehallh.com> wrote: > > >The OLPC will ship with a somewhat unique input device made by ALPS, > > >connected via PS/2 and speaking a protocol only loosely based on that > > >spoken by other ALPS devices. > > > > > > > Do you have a formal programming spec for it? > > Not that I can currently distribute. > > Converting to html, trimming out hardware detail, and feeding it through > channels for ALPS to say that they are comfortable with the amount of > data being released is on my todo list, but behind a few other things.
I see. Well, if you have a decent contacts in ALPS could you ask them if they could release any information on their other hardware?
> > > > >4: Technical/policy: Buttons are currently sent to both of the input > > >devices we generate, I don't see any way to avoid this that is not a > > >policy decision on which buttons belong to which device, but I'm open to > > >suggestions. > > > > > > > Is it not known how actual hardware wired? > > Hardware is wired with one device, which is quite wide. The entire > width can be accessed via the PT sensor, and the middle 1/3rd with the > GS sensor. > > I believe that the buttons will be one on each side, though I'm not > positive, and the PT data, the GS data, and the button data all arrive > in the same packet. > > So really there is no 'right' way from the kernel driver's point of > view, the buttons belong equally to both. > > The kernel driver that this will be matched with will probably leave it > as a user configuration setting as to which one it will throw button > presses away for.
OK.
> > > >+ dev2->name = "OLPC OLPC GlideSensor"; > > > > "OLPC OLPC"? > > To match the first one, with a protocol name of OLPC and a vendor of > OLPC we end up with 'OLPC OLPC' for the first one, this is, IMHO, rather > suboptimal, but I'm not sure what else to do here. >
Should not vendor be still ALPS?
-- Dmitry - 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/
| |