[Wayland-bugs] [Bug 91369] Libinput 0.19 and 0.20 ignore POINTINGSTICK_CONST_ACCEL

[bugzilla-daemon at freedesktop.org]

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=91369

--- Comment #32 from Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at who-t.net> ---
(In reply to Justin Wong from comment #31)
> > no. the hwdb is not a configuration system, it's a system to store hw-specific properties. 
> 
> You mean that you wanna hard code for DELL D520 5150 E4300 E6400 E6420 E6410
> D810 E7440, and Thinkpad T420 T430 T440 T450 X61 X200 X201 X210 X220 X230
> X240 X250? That's horrible!

most of this is likely just adding a hwdb entry, there's some overlap between
the devices. Will we end up with several different accel methods? yes. tens of
them? hopefully not.

> Of course I can simply submit a 7440 compatible patch, but what about other
> devices? Have you tested the code on devices other than T440s or Thinkpad?

I have a x220 and a t440 here, Hans has a couple of other ones and we get
feedback from people with misc other devices. We can push tests into Fedora and
get feedback from there, but the situation is far from ideal.

> I don't know, I can only test on my laptop. But according to
> http://wayland.freedesktop.org/libinput/doc/latest/pointer-acceleration.html
> Why the accel of a 200DPI only a little bit faster than 400DPI device? I
> thought 
> 200DPI should be twice as fast as 400DPI to reach a reasonable speed.

by feel mostly. and the fact that this accel method was largely aimed at mice
and the number of 200dpi mice is so low we don't really need to care about
them. and of course the obvious reason: it was relatively easy to implement and
gave us some solution that was 80% of the way there, which is better than 0% :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-bugs/attachments/20151109/8f109b40/attachment.html>