Hi, On 04/24/2014 09:16 PM, Jonas Ådahl wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 02:28:07PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> We don't want touches in the button area to cause the pointer to move, add >> a tp_button_touch_active function which the main code in evdev-mt-touchpad >> can call to see if a touch should be consider a candidate for being the >> pointer, should be taken into account for 2 finger scrolling, etc. >> >> The idea behind the main code polling for this is that in the future with >> ie edge scrolling we will have another independent state machine, which >> may also want to block a touch from being the pointer, so it is best for >> the main code to test all independent state machines, rather then having >> the state-machines poke the is_pointer variabel directly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> >> Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> >> --- >> src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c | 5 +++++ >> src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c >> b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c >> index f953cd1..e789a87 100644 >> --- a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c >> +++ b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad-buttons.c >> @@ -602,3 +602,8 @@ tp_post_button_events(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t >> time) >> return rc; >> } >> >> +int >> +tp_button_touch_active(struct tp_dispatch *tp, struct tp_touch *t) >> +{ >> + return t->button.state == BUTTON_STATE_AREA; >> +} >> diff --git a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h >> index 8d8dd84..04da6a6 100644 >> --- a/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h >> +++ b/src/evdev-mt-touchpad.h >> @@ -229,4 +229,7 @@ tp_post_button_events(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t >> time); >> int >> tp_button_handle_state(struct tp_dispatch *tp, uint32_t time); >> >> +int >> +tp_button_touch_active(struct tp_dispatch *tp, struct tp_touch *t); >> + > > I think the naming here is a bit inconsistent, as a function in the > following patch with the same naming convention (tp_touch_active()) is a > get:er, not a set:er.
This is a get-er too. > IMO functions with side effects should have that > detail in their name some how, for example in this case _set_active() or > _activate(). > > Also this type of patch fits better as just a detail of the following > patch. That is in order to know how the intended use is without having > to jump between patches. Ok, lets squash the 2 in the next version. Regards, Hans _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel