Re: Custom-shaped periodic effects in force feedback

[Vojtech P. <vo...@su...>]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Johann Deneux wrote:

> The parameter block ioctl approach rises the following issues:
> - One parameter block may be used by several effects. One may see that as
> a feature, as it might allow for some memory to be saved. I am not
> convinced it would be very useful, though.
> - What should be put into parameters, and what should be put into the core
> of the effect ? For example, the direction of a constant effect is encoded
> in the core of the effect in the I-Force protocol, while the amplitude is
> stored in a parameter block. It seems PID does the same. What if another
> protocol chooses to put the direction into parameter blocks ?

We have seven force feedback protocols so far:

1) Rumble (in many different pads)
2) I-Force 1.0 (in the CH Products FF stick, mostly similar to 2.0)
3) I-Force 2.0 (most common)
4) MS MIDI-based FF (very similar to PID)
5) PID (New MS devices, and the Logitech WingMan ForceFeedback mouse)
6) Logitech's new host-controlled FF (basically I-Force done mostly
   on the host CPU)
7) Logitech's new iFeel mice (host controlled vibration)

I think the current API still wraps well enough around them, so that's
OK. Just keep in mind that it should be generic enough, but never too
generic. Too generic things become unusable.

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs