Hi, The second solution adds some kind of complexity to rockbox code, which is not always a good idea. Moreover, while it would be fine, it involves hard-coding of other defines and so on. The first idea is quite better, but still adds something that may be avoided: why not simply keep the touchdev_disable and touchdev_wakeup? On targets without touch power management the driver may simply discard events by filtering. Also the latter isn't really the best option since it doesn't reflect reality but, at least, doesn't add much complexity. What do you think? Definitely I'm for the first option (or mine)
Lorenzo 2013/7/22 Jean-Louis Biasini <jlbias...@gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm locking for direction on how to improve the handling of touch device > by the locking feature. The mains problem of such device as pamaury already > stated for the fuze+ is that they tends shoot event all the time resulting > in lcd refresh killing battery time when not worse (see FS12874 first > comment) > So I'm working on a touchdev disable while locked. I first wrote a > touchdev_disable, touchdev_wakeup function that was putting the touchpad in > sleeps mode see: g#523 > It has been pointed out (gevearts) that it then make the feature > avallaible only for target whose driver handle power function. > The problem at the action.c level is that if we don't kill the touchpad > itself we have to find a way to differency touch event from hardkeys ones. > From here I see several ways: > - add a touchdev_make_silent to all touch device drivers that make them > silent > - group all hard keys for each touch device in a BUTTON_HARD_KEYS define > that we can compare to the key fired in action.c > > Do you see others ones? Which one would be the best? > I'm a bit of a beginner on advanced code so if you have suggestion about > how to do it right I'll be happy to learn. > > thanks in advance > > Jean-Louis Biasini >
