Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 09:15:42PM -0400, Chase Douglas wrote: >> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:04 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 06:36:18PM -0400, Chase Douglas wrote: >>>> Add extra functions for masked valuator input API >>> yes, but no :) >>> idea is right, implementation needs work. Please send this as a patch for >>> better comments. Most notably, you don't need GetPointerEventsM, just >>> change GPE to take >>> the mask bits and fix up the callers in the DDXs. >> I saw GPE is referenced in /usr/include/xorg/input.h, so I was afraid to >> modify its prototype. I certainly can change it though. > > don't be. we don't really care about ABI guarantees across server revisions, > if a change makes sense add it. the only callers of GPE are the DDX's anyway > and they are in-tree. well, except VNC, they'll just have to live with it ;) > >> <snip> >>>> Add atom name for ABS_MT_SLOT properties >>> I'm not sure at all about this. I was hoping to abstract the slots so we >>> don't need to expose thos to the clients. >> Given the approach that I have been taking, we have to expose the slot >> number to the clients. If you only send one touch data point per event, >> the client needs to know about its tracking data. The easiest way to do >> this is to just pass the ABS_MT_SLOT property from the kernel. > > I thought the valuator number (or set of valuators) implicitly defined a > slot.
Yes, I believe we have seen an extremely rapid development here, passing through three different stages so far. It would certainly help if we discussed the protocol details a bit at this stage. Cheers, Henrik _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
