[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Scroll Wheel

Geoffrey Romer wrote:

> I have an identical mouse to yours, and an identical setup, except that I
> am running the mouse through the USB port directly. I have had the same
> problem, of having no wheel support enabled. I have exactly duplicated
> the configuration you give below, but it does not work for me. In particular,
> my mouse works with the PS/2 protocol, and switching it to ExporerPS/2 causes
> it to fail badly, in the manner which a mis-selected protocol usually fails
> (although it works approximately if the mouse movements are kept very small).
> If I switch back to PS/2, the wheel does not function.
> Is there anything else you have done to enable wheel support?

Well, here's everything about my system that I can think of that is relevant
to the mouse setup...

The mouse is NOT on USB; I'm using the USB-to-PS/2 adapter that Microsoft
provided with the mouse. I have never tried using USB for the mouse on a
Linux machine. (My Windows box, perversely, doesn't like the Intellimouse
Optical unless it IS on USB!)

I do NOT have gpm or imwheel running; in fact, I don't think they're
installed at all.

I am running XFree86 4.0.3-4 from sid.

Here is my /etc/X11/gdm/Init/Default:

/usr/bin/X11/xsetroot -solid "#720084"
/usr/bin/X11/xmodmap -e "pointer = 1 2 3 6 7 4 5"

The xsetroot line has nothing to do with the mouse, but the xmodmap line
is necessary to get the buttons mapped correctly. Without this, the side
buttons get mapped to 4 and 5, and the wheel scrolling to 6 and 7. But
the lack of this won't explain a total failure of the wheel to register
in xev.

Here (again, for completeness) is how my mouse is defined in XF86Config-4:

Section "InputDevice"
	Identifier	"Generic Mouse"
	Driver		"mouse"
	Option          "CorePointer"
	Option		"Device"		"/dev/psaux"
	Option		"Protocol"		"ExplorerPS/2"
	Option		"SendCoreEvents"	"true"
	Option		"Buttons"		"7"
	Option		"ZAxisMapping"		"6 7"

I can't think of anything else relevant.


Reply to: