On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 10:28:54AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/09/2014 12:56 AM, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> > That certainly looks correct, but this code will return a value less than
> > 1.0 when absinfo->value == absinfo->maximum. Is this correct? If it is
> > supposed to be 1.0 the
Hi,
On 10/09/2014 12:56 AM, Bill Spitzak wrote:
> That certainly looks correct, but this code will return a value less than 1.0
> when absinfo->value == absinfo->maximum. Is this correct? If it is supposed
> to be 1.0 then I would remove the +1 in the line that computes range.
Right, we need to
On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 02:53:21PM -0700, Jason Gerecke wrote:
> We need to *subtract*, not *add* the minimum to determine the
> range-effective value. For example: if (min, current, max) is
> (100, 100, 1000) then the normalized value would be 0.0, not 0.2.
woopsie. applied, thanks.
Cheers,
P
That certainly looks correct, but this code will return a value less
than 1.0 when absinfo->value == absinfo->maximum. Is this correct? If it
is supposed to be 1.0 then I would remove the +1 in the line that
computes range.
On 10/08/2014 02:53 PM, Jason Gerecke wrote:
We need to *subtract*, n
We need to *subtract*, not *add* the minimum to determine the
range-effective value. For example: if (min, current, max) is
(100, 100, 1000) then the normalized value would be 0.0, not 0.2.
Signed-off-by: Jason Gerecke
---
This patch should be applied to the 'tablet-support' branch, obviously.
..
