[PATCH libinput 10/20] touchpad: Add tp_button_touch_active function

[Hans de Goede]

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 <hdegoede at redhat.com>
>> Acked-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer at 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