With keymap messages, we may get and process data on the wire
but it doesn't necessarily result in a visible event. We need to enter
dispatch again to process the data in the next packet.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This is slightly inconsistent with the configure API but more consistent
with the device API (which also has a new() + add()). It reduces
potential bugs though because the region cannot be added to two devices
anymore, and this way we also get a context in the region from the start
(which means we can log).
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This isn't something that libei itself uses but clients like synergy
need to know about this to be able to map relative pointer motion from
one host into the right physical pixel on another host.
This is required for mutter in the x11-compat mode where a 4k screen is
logically twice the size of a 2k screen, despite having the same
physical size.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This is required for supporting synergy/barrier and similar clients.
Replacing the touch and pointer range we now have server-defined
rectangular regions that specify the active zones for this device.
For example, a dual-monitor EIS server would create two touch devices
with one region each for the respective monitors - libei-generated
touches would thus fall on the right area of the monitor. Or just one
device with one region if the second screen should be inaccessible.
A relative device may have multiple regions since it can reach all
screens in the layout.
This leaks the screen layout to libei but that is necessary for the
functionality to work. A libei client may need to control devices
through absolute coordinates and it needs to know where screen
transitions from one to the next screen happen:
+-----------++----------------+
| || |
| B||Q |
| |+----------------+
| |
| A|P
+-----------+
In the above example, position P is unreachable and a client that
controls input on both screens must know that it cannot transition from
A to P but it can transition from B to Q.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This is useful for debugging, let's pass it through and let the log
handler decide whether to use it or not.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This is useful for debugging, let's pass it through and let the log
handler decide whether to use it or not.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
If our client binds to a seat and then disconnects, insert an unbind
event in the EIS queue to unwind correctly.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This changes the protocol so that it is the EIS implementation that
creates devices within a seat.
A client now "binds" to a seat and the EIS implementation creates
devices matching the requested capabilities. A client can close a device
if it no longer wants those but otherwise everything (including pointer
ranges) is handled by the server.
This is one giant patch because changes at the protocol level cannot
easily be broken out into smaller patches. Some FIXMEs are left which
will be handled in follow-up patches, e.g. the keymap handling is
basically broken right now.
Fixes#7
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Once the SEAT_REMOVED event has been processed, adding new devices is
pointless. But we do promise a DEVICE_REMOVED event for any device added with
ei_device_add(), so let's immediately queue an event and mark the device as
dead.
Since the SEAT_REMOVED event may still be pending in the queue (i.e. not yet
read by the client), we need to prepend the event to the queue. Note that
client that immediately add a device when a device is removed will cause
an infinite loop.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
This simplifies the handling of devices that were never added a bit, including
handling the refs between seat and device. And for legitimate use-cases
there's no reason why a caller would create a device but never add it.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
xdotool sends the events and disconnects immediately, Xwayland queues up those
events until it has a seat but then also disconnects immediately. Let's
emulate this behavior so we can catch breakages before Xwayland sees them.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Removing a seat could cause two device remove events to happen. Fix this by
splitting the removal up into two bits: removed by server and removed by
client. Only once both bits are set, remove the device.
This needs to happen in libei and libeis.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
Add a debug marker to show any changes done during the final event processing,
and print the event name for wrong event types.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
To cut down on the boilerplate, an unref-able struct variable can now be
declared as
_unref_(type) *name = NULL;
which is the equivalent of
_cleanup_(type_unrefp) struct type *name = NULL;
Let's see how that style ends up reading.
This means we can get rid of the custom _cleanup_foo_ functions everywhere, no
need for all the extra #defines etc. A somewhat special case is systemd which
defines the various unrefp functions for us in the headers, so we can use them
directly.
OBJECT_IMPLEMENT_UNREF now also creates the unrefp function for this object -
this of course conflicts where DECLARE_UNREF_CLEANUP_FUNC is in scope. Not a
problem so far, let's see how we go.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
After CONNECT, the EIS implementation needs to add one or more seats. The
libei client can only create devices within those seats. This mirrors the
wayland hierarchy as well as the X.Org one.
The seat has a set of allowed capabilities, so the client knows ahead of time
when it may not be possible to create a specific device.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutterer@who-t.net>
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>
