When Android presents an input event to an app, it wants the app to
return true or false depending on whether the app handled the event or
not. If the event wasn't handled by the app, it will be passed on to
the system, which may decide to take an action depending on what kind
of input event it is. For instance, if a B button press is passed on to
the system, it will be turned into a Back press. But if an R1 press is
passed on to the system, nothing in particular happens.
It's important that we get this return value right in Dolphin. For
instance, the user generally wouldn't want a B button press to open
the EmulationActivity menu, so B button presses usually shouldn't be
passed on to the system - but volume button presses usually should be
passed on to the system, since it would be hard to adjust the volume
otherwise. What ButtonManager did was to pass on input events that are
for a button which the user has not mapped, which I think makes sense.
But exactly how to implement that is more complicated in the new input
backend than in ButtonManager, because now we have a separation between
the input backend and the code that keeps track of the user's mappings.
What I'm going with in this commit is to treat an input as mapped if
it has been polled recently. In part I chose this because it seemed
like a simple way of implementing it that wouldn't cause too many
layering violations, but it also has two useful side effects:
1. If a controller is not being polled (e.g. GameCube controllers in
Wii games that don't use them), its mappings will not be considered.
2. Once sensor input is implemented in the Android input backend,
we will be able to use this "polled recently" tracking to power down
the sensors at times when the game is using a Wii Remote reporting
mode that doesn't include motion data. (Assuming that the sensor
inputs only are mapped to Wii Remote motion controls, that is.)
Android doesn't let us poll inputs whenever we want. Instead, we
listen to input events (activities will have to forward them to the
input backend), and store the received values in atomic variables
in the Input classes. This is similar in concept to how ButtonManager
worked, but without its homegrown second input mapping system.
ButtonManager is very different from how a normal input backend works,
and is making it hard for us to improve controller support on Android.
The following commits will add a new input backend in its place.
I also changed LoadConfig, but that change doesn't affect correctness,
it's only so it looks neat by matching SaveConfig.
This bug was added in 18a4afb053, the
commit that introduced DefaultValue::Disabled. The bug can't actually be
triggered in master, but it can be triggered in the Android input
overhaul PR.
This is the first step of getting rid of the controller indirection
on Android. (Needing a way for touch controls to provide input
to the emulator core is the reason why the controller indirection
exists to begin with as far as I understand it.)
This lets the TAS input code use a higher-level interface for
overriding inputs instead of having to fiddle with raw bits.
WiiTASInputWindow in particular was messy with how much
controller code it had to re-implement.
This hack was added in 8f0cbefbe5, and the part of it in SI_DeviceGCAdapter is present on Android already, so I don't see any reason why this part doesn't apply to Android.
This is mostly a brainless merge, #ifdef-ing anything that doesn't match between the two while preserving common logic. I didn't rename any variables (although similar ones do exist), but I did change one log that was ERROR on android and NOTICE elsewhere to just always be NOTICE. Further merging will follow.
Loading configs while another thread is messing with stuff just doesn't feel like a good idea
Hopefully fixes Wiimote Scanning Thread crashes on startup
I am not confident there are no race conditions between s_write_mutex,
s_controller_write_payload_size, and s_controller_write_payload. But
this code should be safer than before.
s_controller_write_payload_size needs to remain an atomic because Read()
loads and stores without holding a mutex, Output() stores while holding
s_write_mutex, and ResetRumble() stores while holding s_read_mutex! I'm
pretty sure this code is wrong, specifically ResetRumble().
You can safely read or write non-atomic integers on multiple threads,
as long as every thread reading or writing it holds the same mutex
while doing so (here, s_mutex).
Removing the atomic accesses makes the code faster, but the actual
performance difference is probably negligible.
JosJuice