--- Comment #21 from Tim Richardson <t...@tim-richardson.net> ---
Hi Peter, I confirm that I have no adverse side effects from the P50 rule
triggering the ignore non-touch events logic with the code I am using. Locally
I have gone back to exactly your udev rules including your p50 rule.
You will probably conclude to ignore my patches and re-apply the one you
reverted, so assuming that, I won't resubmit patches for this. That is, I
assume this is less work for you (and me). Thanks for your patience, I feel
that my future contributions will be much better thanks to your help. This is
the first C I have looked at in years. The barrier to entry is really low, you
have done awesome job making someone like me a contributor, even if not a very
good one just yet.
I have continued to do work on better P50 touchpad, see experimental patch. It
is dramatically better, building on the non-touch event rejection.
One reason is the threshold for the application of part 3 of the acceleration
profile is about 250 mm/s movement, which is way too fast ... this is probably
a nominal figure, and it presumably makes sense of a lot of hardware I will
never see, yet is it terribly wrong for the P50. My changes go beyond this, I
have simplified the algorithm.
I'm really happy to have a much better laptop thanks to the past few days.
However, the big question for me is how do I submit hardware-specific changes?
There is a a separate acceleration profile and default values for the ThinkPad
X230 ... should I replicate this? It seems to me based on this experience that
we should actually expect quirks to include idiosyncratic magic values and
acceleration algorithms, but maybe the P50 is just an outlier.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
wayland-bugs mailing list