On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:00:08PM +0100, Sascha Silbe wrote:
echo [1|0] > /sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio1/ptmode
Thanks for working on this! Unfortunately enabling PT mode makes the
touchpad stop working for me.
Actually it did work, I just didn't realize it needs considerable force
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 06:34:49PM -0500, Paul Fox wrote:
echo [1|0] > /sys/devices/platform/i8042/serio1/ptmode
Thanks for working on this! Unfortunately enabling PT mode makes the
touchpad stop working for me. After disabling it again it works as if
nothing had happened. There are no (
walter wrote:
> (FWIW, I am still of the opinion that we may want to disable the
> touchpad on the old hardware and re-enable the resistive pad, which
> should be more immune to some of the problems we have been
> experiencing.)
i've just pushed changes to the olpc-2.6.31 branch that let one
d
james wrote:
> Sorry for the delayed response, I think I need to play around and compile a
> kernel module and then use it on the xo-1. But to answer a few of the
> questions...
>
> The init of the psmouse module
>
> > > triggers a calibration.
> >
> > that's certainly true, but i think
Sorry for the delayed response, I think I need to play around and compile a
kernel module and then use it on the xo-1. But to answer a few of the
questions...
The init of the psmouse module
> > triggers a calibration.
>
> that's certainly true, but i think it happens pretty early -- the
> kernel
james wrote:
> One thing I realised I could have emphasised is that the attempted
> recalibration based on jumpiness is self perpetuating. Much like why
> post_interrupt_delay didn't work. We're trying to think of things the device
> developers would have already thought about.
very true -- th
james -- thanks for taking a fresh look at this.
james wrote:
> Thanks Martin,
>
> With some help from the people at #olpc-devel such as pgf, I was able to
> look at where I needed to to test some theories.
>
> Looking at the code in hgpk.c that runs on the xo-1 I'm testing on,
>
> The
>> To prove, first turn off how the existing module triggers
>> recalibrations
> Reproduced without changing parameters or a nose.
Turning off the recalibrations was just to allow miscalibration to persist
for demonstration purposes. Ie, starting from first principles to show my
reasoning.
> I
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 01:30:06AM +0100, James Zaki wrote:
> The first thing I suspect most people do while waiting for the gui to
> become responsive is try to move the curser.
Yes, I've seen children do that. Or press keyboard keys hoping it will
go faster booting. It seems to work for them b
Thanks Martin,
With some help from the people at #olpc-devel such as pgf, I was able to
look at where I needed to to test some theories.
Looking at the code in hgpk.c that runs on the xo-1 I'm testing on,
The first thing I suspect most people do while waiting for the gui to become
responsive is
martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > > Ok. How does t165/100 test? So far we have suggested tests:
> > >
> > > - spirals test
> > > - using etoys / scratch
>
> So we are now testing with xset m 7/4 0 vs xset m 165/100 0
>
> > this afternoon i was
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 6:29 PM, James Zaki wrote:
> I've just setup my xo-1 with os11 and updated to near-latest (within a week
> off the top of my head) kernel + kernel-firmware.
>
> I'd like to do some touchpad testing if its of any help, but will need do a
> bit of a mental download to underst
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > Ok. How does t165/100 test? So far we have suggested tests:
> >
> > - spirals test
> > - using etoys / scratch
So we are now testing with xset m 7/4 0 vs xset m 165/100 0
> this afternoon i was using spirals in Paint for low-speed mane
I've just setup my xo-1 with os11 and updated to near-latest (within a week
off the top of my head) kernel + kernel-firmware.
I'd like to do some touchpad testing if its of any help, but will need do a
bit of a mental download to understand the pieces at play here.
If someone could respond with so
martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
>
> > okay, i've now done so, and i now think i see what you mean about
> >xset m 7/4 0
> > vs.
> >xset m 7/4 1
>
> ok - glad that I'm not so crazy ;-)
>
>
> > i think setting acceleration to 7/4 as we're doin
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> okay, i've now done so, and i now think i see what you mean about
> xset m 7/4 0
> vs.
> xset m 7/4 1
ok - glad that I'm not so crazy ;-)
> i think setting acceleration to 7/4 as we're doing is a little
> aggressive, and i might choose
martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > > According to the man page the 2nd parameter is the threshold at which
> > > the acceleration value is applied so I'm not surprised that you don't
> > > see any difference between 0 and 1. Even 4 might be hard to see. I
p...@laptop.org said:
> i'm afraid i've gotten not much feedback at all. and what i did get
> was nothing much more than "it didn't make it worse". :-/ i also
> hoped to get feedback from the folks running F11-on-XO1, since they're
> all using the new driver as well (and, i think the new xset va
walter wrote:
>
> (FWIW, I am still of the opinion that we may want to disable the
> touchpad on the old hardware and re-enable the resistive pad, which
> should be more immune to some of the problems we have been
> experiencing.)
i agree that this would be a worthy experiment. the problem
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Paul Fox wrote:
> martin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > > > According to the man page the 2nd parameter is the threshold at which
> > > > the acceleration value is applied so I'm not surprised that you don't
> > > > see any
martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > > According to the man page the 2nd parameter is the threshold at which
> > > the acceleration value is applied so I'm not surprised that you don't
> > > see any difference between 0 and 1. Even 4 might be hard to see. I
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > According to the man page the 2nd parameter is the threshold at which
> > the acceleration value is applied so I'm not surprised that you don't
> > see any difference between 0 and 1. Even 4 might be hard to see. I
> > think that to see a
smith wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 12:34 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
>
> > > You are suggesting xset m 7/4 4? My tests where with 7/4 1...
> >
> > oh! sorry -- i was mis-remembering. you're correct that i
> > previously recommended that the last element should be 1, and
> > that's still correct. (a
On 01/18/2010 12:34 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > You are suggesting xset m 7/4 4? My tests where with 7/4 1...
>
> oh! sorry -- i was mis-remembering. you're correct that i
> previously recommended that the last element should be 1, and
> that's still correct. (although in practice greater values
On 01/18/2010 01:31 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Richard A. Smith wrote:
>> What you see as a regression I see as an enhancement. My evidence is based
>> on what deployments/pilots talk about when they come give reports at 1cc.
>> When we talk about touchpad pr
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Richard A. Smith wrote:
> What you see as a regression I see as an enhancement. My evidence is based
> on what deployments/pilots talk about when they come give reports at 1cc.
> When we talk about touchpad problems it often mentioned that the children
> have a h
On 01/18/2010 07:23 AM, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> * Going from xset 7/4 0 to 7/4 1 did not make a noticeable improvement
> -- and does bring the drawback that a fast finger swipe no longer gets
> you across the screen. This is a usability regression, and I don't
> have much evidence to show to coun
martin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> > in my testing, setting
> > the final argument to 0 resulted in extremely jerky performance.
>
> Was that with the new or old psmouse code?
>
> Have you got a test procedure I can try, maybe drawing spirals isn't
> the o
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Paul Fox wrote:
> in my testing, setting
> the final argument to 0 resulted in extremely jerky performance.
Was that with the new or old psmouse code?
Have you got a test procedure I can try, maybe drawing spirals isn't
the only relevant test...?
> if setting th
martin wrote:
> Late last year Gary and others volunteered to test my 802b1 build,
> with a nice test practice from Gary of drawing spirals. It took me a
> while to get back onto this (apologies - real life intruded in a big
> way), but I have been working on this again, hoping to close it.
>
Late last year Gary and others volunteered to test my 802b1 build,
with a nice test practice from Gary of drawing spirals. It took me a
while to get back onto this (apologies - real life intruded in a big
way), but I have been working on this again, hoping to close it.
I took 4 laptops (2 with ALP
31 matches
Mail list logo