Re: How to indicate hover touch when exact distance unknown?

Hi Benjamin,

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:59:16AM -0400, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:

Hi Andrew,

On Sep 23 2014 or thereabouts, Andrew de los Reyes wrote:

quoted

Hi folks,

More and more we're seeing touch input devices that support detection of
fingers that are above the surface and not touching. We were thinking of
writing a kernel patch for one such device. Normally we would indicate
distance with ABS_MT_DISTANCE, but we ran into the problem that sometimes
the hardware will not be able to report a distance (or will stop reporting
a distance when it's too great a number), and we had the (bad) idea to
simply report a value or 1 or 255 or something like that when distance is
unknown.

FWIW, hid-multitouch already support those devices.
ABS_MT_DISTANCE is set with a min/max of 0/1 when we detect win8
certified panels with hovering capability. By default the spec does not
provide the distance IIRC, and you only have one byte: InRange.

Hmm, I missed that and this is unfortunate. The ABS capabilities
advertised by the devices should match their real capabilities. If
device can't properly report distance it should not be using
ABS_MT_DISTANCE/ABS_DISTANCE...

I think Xorg can deal with that (the touch emulation discards the
ABS_MT_DISTANCE, but the xorg-evdev driver should be smart enough to not
take BTN_TOUCH into account).

quoted

Dmitry warned that a similar thing happened with PRESSURE a while ago, and
it was a mess as different drivers did different things.

As I said, IIRC, xorg-evdev is fine with that. For generic desktop, we
have to make sure libinput is aware, and then you only have to handle
your own xorg chromebook driver. This is not something which scares me
that much, especially given that this is what hid-multitouch reports
since the v3.9 kernel.
libinput is based on a per slot device information, so it is really easy
to implement if it is not already in place. xorg-Synaptics and xorg-Wacom
should not be ported to wayland from what I understood, so the mess with
several implementations can be solved easily.

quoted

We are now wondering if we should come up with a standard way to indicate
hover with or without distance (or with distance being optional). Dmitry
had the idea for a new tool type, HOVER; FINGER would be for touches that
are actually touching.

The tool is still the finger.

Do we reliably know that it is a finger and not a pen or eraser or some
other tool? If we do then obviously introducing new tool will not fly.

So I am not very happy with having a new
tool. In the end, it may also disturb older clients which will not know
what to do with HOVER.
And the ABS_MT_DISTANCE approach used to be fully retro-compatible
(assuming that the hovering distance is small enough for the user not to
detect it).

Except that if we start getting devices that can actually tell the
distance we'd need special casing 0/1 handling, no?

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry