From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Hutterer Subject: Re: Question about ABS_DISTANCE's intended usage. Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:39:15 +1000 Message-ID: <20160223223915.GC13049@jelly.redhat.com> References: <20160218181930.GA34407@dtor-ws> <20160221220426.GA20055@jelly.redhat.com> <20160222220432.GB11173@jelly.redhat.com> <20160223220245.GA3971@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from leo.clearchain.com ([199.73.29.74]:22862 "EHLO mail.clearchain.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751514AbcBWWl1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 17:41:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160223220245.GA3971@dtor-ws> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Dmitry Torokhov Cc: Charles Mooney , Benjamin Tissoires , Henrik Rydberg , Linux Input On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 02:02:45PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 08:04:32AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 08:35:31AM -0800, Charles Mooney wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 2:04 PM Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 01:56:05PM -0800, Charles Mooney wrote: > > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm currently working with a touchpad vendor with a new device that > > > > > > supports a limited form of hover detection. Their sensor is able to > > > > > > detect the presence or absence of a finger/hand/palm hovering over the > > > > > > sensor without touching it, but is unable to report any more details > > > > > > about it. This is a more limited form of hover detection than some > > > > > > devices which attach a hover state to each finger they see, and can > > > > > > even report x/y coordinates to hovering finger. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead of using ABS_MT_DISTANCE, it appears that the correct event to > > > > > > use would be ABS_DISTANCE, since the value is not tied to a specific > > > > > > finger. I would like to check with you all about how this value is > > > > > > intended to be used, because it's not quite as obvious to me as I > > > > > > first thought. > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to handle three basic states: > > > > > > 1. At least one finger is touching the pad. > > > > > > 2. Something is hovering, but nothing is actually touching. > > > > > > 3. Nothing is touching the pad and nothing is detected hovering over it either > > > > > > > > > > > > It's seems clear to me that an ABS_DISTANCE of zero should indicate > > > > > > state #1 and that any other legal positive value should indicate state > > > > > > #2, but I'm less clear on what the best way to handle state #3 is. > > > > > > Currently, I think the best strategy would be to use a value of > > > > > > ABS_DISTANCE = -1 to indicate that there are no fingers seen (hovering > > > > > > or otherwise), does that make sense? > > > > > > > > > > > > If not this, how else would you suggest that this ought to be done? > > > > > > > > > > As we discussed in person, I believe that reporting an "out of bounds" > > > > > value for ABS_DISTANCE when we have to use single-touch mode and thus do > > > > > not have a good way to invalidate a contact, is the easiest option. > > > > > Alternative would be to invent another SYN event, which I'd rather not. > > > > > > > > > > So for devices that support hovering but can not report individual > > > > > hovering contacts we should declare 0..N as ABS_DISTANCE range and report > > > > > following values: > > > > > > > > > > - 0 when a finger is actually touching > > > > > - 1..N for hovering fingers > > > > > - return X < 0 or X > N when no fingers are detected at all; in > > > > > practice I think we should simply report -1 in this case. > > > > > > > > > > Benjamin, Peter, Henrik, any concerns? > > > > > > > > on the touchpads that support hovering we're already using BTN_TOOL_FINGER > > > > together with ABS_DISTANCE, without needing out-of-range reports. > > > > BTN_TOUCH is the signal when a finger is physically touching (or ABS_PRESSURE > > > > if it exists and clients care about it). > > > > > > > > So the sequence Charles should send is: > > > > > > > > 3) :) > > > > 2) > > > > EV_ABS ABS_DISTANCE # for d > 0 > > > > EV_KEY BTN_TOOL_FINGER 1 > > > > EV_SYN SYN_REPORT 0 > > > > 1) > > > > EV_ABS ABS_DISTANCE 0 > > > > EV_ABS ABS_X > > > > EV_ABS ABS_Y > > > > ... > > > > EV_KEY BTN_TOUCH 1 > > > > EV_SYN SYN_REPORT 0 > > > > 2) > > > > EV_ABS ABS_DISTANCE # for d > 0 > > > > EV_KEY BTN_TOUCH 0 > > > > EV_SYN SYN_REPORT 0 > > > > 3) > > > > EV_KEY BTN_TOOL_FINGER 0 > > > > EV_SYN SYN_REPORT 0 > > > > > > > > This should work with at least libinput, though I have to check what happens > > > > when you don't send x/y on the first event. I think this would need a patch > > > > in libinput, but that's doable. And it's the same sequence we also use for > > > > e.g. pen tools that support hovering as well. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > > > > > Hi Peter, > > > > > > It looks like you're suggesting to use "BTN_TOOL_FINGER" as a signal > > > as to weather or not the value in "ABS_DISTANCE" is valid or not. > > > > > > 1. No finger detected anywhere: > > > BTN_TOOL_FINGER = 0 > > > ABS_DISTANCE = n/a > > > 2. Finger seen hovering but not touching: > > > BTN_TOOL_FINGER = 1 > > > ABS_DISTANCE > 0 > > > 2. Finger touching: > > > BTN_TOOL_FINGER = 1 > > > ABS_DISTANCE = 0 > > > > you should set BTN_TOUCH here. This can be done based on some magic pressure > > threshold if you have pressure, otherwise just unconditionally set it > > whenever distance is 0. > > > > > > > > Am I understanding that correctly? > > > > yes, but IMO better to think it this way: BTN_TOOL_FINGER signals whether a > > finger is detected by the device. everything else is just axis information > > if and when it becomes available. > > likewise, BTN_TOUCH signals whether the current tool (could be something > > other than finger) logically touches the surface. > > I wonder if this will not confuse clients that do not pay attention to > ABS_DISTANCE though... I take it that libinput and x synaptics drivers > won't be confused, mousedev in kernel relies on BTN_TOUCH, what about > others? if they get confused, they'd already be confused by a set of current devices. This isn't new behaviour, we've been doing this for quite a while. and as I said above, it matches the behaviour we use for BTN_TOOL_PEN, it's IMO hard to justify that the behaviour should be different between the two tools. Cheers, Peter