On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 05:13:41PM -0800, Jason Gerecke wrote:
> It would be nice to be more intelligent (see other patch :D) but
> agreed that this situation shouldn't be considered a bug.
>
After looking at this code some more: the check we perform here does
not make much sense and should go entirely:
in rebasePressure() we do:
if (!priv->oldProximity)
priv->minPressure = ds->pressure;
else
priv->minPressure = min(priv->minPressure, ds->pressure);
immediately thereafter (in normalizePressure()) we essentially do:
if (ds->pressure < priv->minPressure)
LogMessageVerbSigSafe(X_INFO, 0,
"%s: Pressure %d lower than expected
minimum %d.\n",
priv->pInfo->name, ds->pressure,
priv->minPressure);
Unless we don't trust the implementation of min() we should
not expect this condition to ever trigger.
I assume the test was a leftover from a time where minPressure was only
taken on proximity in.
Cheers,
Egbert.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Android apps run on BlackBerry 10
Introducing the new BlackBerry 10.2.1 Runtime for Android apps.
Now with support for Jelly Bean, Bluetooth, Mapview and more.
Get your Android app in front of a whole new audience. Start now.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=124407151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Linuxwacom-devel mailing list
Linuxwacom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxwacom-devel
