[RFC 5/11] Linux FF: Linux effect parameters: time parameters

[Elias Vanderstuyft]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 5:19 PM, Andrew Eikum <aeikum at codeweavers.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 11:38:06AM +0100, Elias Vanderstuyft wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Andrew Eikum <aeikum at codeweavers.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 08:20:09PM +0100, Elias Vanderstuyft wrote:
>> >>     So change in dinput/effect_linuxinput.c:488 :
>> >>         This->effect.u.periodic.period = tsp->dwPeriod / 1000;
>> >>     to :
>> >>         if (0 < tsp->dwPeriod && tsp->dwPeriod <= 1000)
>> >>             This->effect.u.periodic.period = 1;
>> >>         else
>> >>             This->effect.u.periodic.period = tsp->dwPeriod / 1000;
>> >>
>> >
>> > Seems good. While we're here, any reason not to use round(3) instead
>> > of always rounding down in the >1000 case?
>>
>> That's a good question, the reason is that I want to avoid floating
>> point arithmetic (round(3)).
>
> Okay. If using floating point is costly, then I agree the tiny (<1ms)
> increase in accuracy isn't worth it.
>
>> > Is this how Windows behaves
>> > for massive dwPeriod? I would expect E_INVALIDARG, since it's out of
>> > the range [0,36000).
>>
>> I think you're mixing up dwPeriod with dwPhase. The range of dwPeriod
>> is not defined in MSDN.
>>
>
> Yes, you're right. Your updated patch seems fine.
>
>> Maybe we should also change all occurrences of 10000 in a force
>> context to DI_FFNOMINALMAX, in the whole FF dinput implementation?
>>
>
> I would support a patch like that, yes.

OK.

>
> (I've been busy lately, but I'll get to the rest of your mail sequence
> soon!)

No problem, thanks for all feedback already!


Elias