Re: [PATCH 2/2] input: mt: Document the MT event slot protocol (rev2)

[Ping Cheng]

On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I need double check with you although I think I know the answer. From
>> your explanation and examples so far, I see MT_SLOT is only associated
>> with one (x,y). Is this true?  If yes, can we eliminate the
>> requirement for TRACKING_ID? If you think the requirement is
>> necessary, can you give me an example where missing the TRACKING_ID
>> would bring issue or confusion?
>
> Yes, each slot can only be associated with one (x, y) pair. No, we cannot
> disregard the tracking id. A slot tracks a single contact for its entire
> lifetime, during which the tracking id serves no purpose, but the slot cannot
> tell us when the contact is replaced by a new one. This information is carried
> by the tracking id.

Ok, I've made enough noise in this thread. If we change SYN_MT_SLOT to
ABS_MT_SLOT_ID (or something starting with ABS_ of your choice), I
have no more questions.

You can put my reviewed-by in the patch if that counts for anything:

Reviewed-by: Ping Cheng <pingc@xxxxxxxxx>

Ping
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/