Hi, On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 10:06:01AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote: > On 12/01/2010 05:07 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:58:20AM -0500, Chase Douglas wrote: > >> Can you provide more detail? I don't see the parallel yet. > >> > >> If you're thinking that each touch axis valuator could have it's own > >> direct/dependent mode, I don't really understand what that would mean. > > > > well, I guess 20 years ago they didn't think that having devices that are > > both absolute and relative was unlikely :) > > > > same thing here. best example I can think of right now is a MT tablet that > > has a touchstrip like the Intuos3. the latter would be relative to the > > pointer position. > > We could support this through per-axis modes, but I think that would get > hairy. We would have to enforce the X and Y axes to be the same mode. > Then we would need some sort of distinction between the strip valuators > and the touchscreen valuators. They both may support pressure data, for > example, with different resolutions and such. And what would be the mode > of the non-positional axes like pressure?
Well, seeing that the only relevant axes for direct/dependent are x & y, I don't think we have to worry about this. > Instead, we could create separate input devices for the strip and the > touchscreen. The strip would be a dependent device, and would usually be > attached to the same MD as the touch screen. However, it could also be > attached to a different MD, allowing for more interesting mixing and > matching of input devices. We could make the mode in the touch class a bitmask of direct and dependent, and let the driver tell us at touch creation time whether the touch should be direct or dependent? Cheers, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
