This fits better with the rest of the API and also fits much nicer into the
most common use-case of "device doesn't have a keymap".
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Client-side the approach is a managed touch object rather than passing the
touchid around. This is intentional, it allows for a stackable API in the
future if we need to add things like pressure or major/minor to it.
On the server side the touches are managed through the event object anyway, so
we don't need the same abstraction there.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Because events may be in-transit when a client removes the device, we need to
make this a full roundtrip to the server. Otherwise the client may assume a
device is removed, releases all references and then gets the original device
added event for that device. Better to have this as a round-trip instead.
This requires the server to call eis_device_disconnect() on the removed
notifications but we do so during eis_event_unref() anyway in case the server
forgets.
And it changes some of the API behaviors, so adjust the tests for that.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
The previous approach would implicitly allow any capability not known to the
server. Switch instead to requiring an explicit 'ok' for any capability the
server wants to support.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Naming scheme is now: ei_device_<capability>_get/set_<what>. So far the
range is the only one where we had to deal with the same thing for two
different capabilities and it's unlikely we'll have to have different keymaps
for different capabilities. But still, let's do this now while it's still
easy.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Naming scheme is now: ei_device_<capability>_configure_<what>. So far the
range is the only one where we had to deal with the same thing for two
different capabilities and it's unlikely we'll have to have different keymaps
for different capabilities. But still, let's do this now while it's still
easy.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Initial implementation only handled this correctly if the fds were over
multiple message headers, not multiple fds in the same message header.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
In case the RESUMED isn't written on the wire yet (or it's written with
sendmsg and thus a separate message on its own) we don't have the RESUMED
ready for us yet. Let's call another dispatch to make sure it's processed.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Where the server connects a device after the client has already removed it, we
need to ignore that message silently.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This was already spelled out in the documentation but just not yet
implemented. New starting state for any device added by EIS is "suspended",
the server needs to explicitly resume it before events are accepted.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This function dispatches until a stable state is reached - that could be no
event waiting or some event waiting to be processed.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
We can remove those when we have a working implementation, for now it's too
painful to debug when an exchange doesn't work for some reason.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
