On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:34:10PM -0400, Chandler Paul wrote: > On Fri, 2014-05-23 at 17:00 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > I'm almost sold on normalization since it does reduce the likelihood of > > things going wrong. We need to provide the axis resolution to convert back > > to the real data though where needed. > > > > once you provide the axis resolution, it doesn't matter if you provide raw > > data unless you also want to provide "raw" resolution, which is excessive.. > > > > so, given that this would be sent down the protocol (and for the limited > > resolution) the range should be normalised to uint16_t or uint32_t max, with > > the resolution in units/mm or canonicalized where more appropriate. This > > would be what goes on the wayland protocol as well then. > > > > helper functions to convert that back to doubles, or elbows per square ounce > > would be part of the wl-client package that parses that protcol, not > > libinput. > > > > that doesn't seem like the worst architecture for both libinput and the > > protocol, any comments? > > Seems fine to me. As for normalizing values to units/mm or the like, is > there any known conversion for the units the tablet returns for distance > to metric?
Benjamin answered that on IRC, but for the archives: the distance is in mm, though in reality the data is inprecise. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
