From 1064a50dc86c2aea54bc6830c6cae464feb27feb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jeff Brown <jeffbrown@google.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 16:51:37 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] hasVibrator() should only report presence of built-in
 vibrator.

Bug: 6430585
Change-Id: Ia8d8656a2f0467b83f22a1dd747fbd17575573b3
---
 .../java/com/android/server/VibratorService.java     | 12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/services/java/com/android/server/VibratorService.java b/services/java/com/android/server/VibratorService.java
index 6282c31ce97d4..b6098675b5dce 100755
--- a/services/java/com/android/server/VibratorService.java
+++ b/services/java/com/android/server/VibratorService.java
@@ -391,9 +391,15 @@ public class VibratorService extends IVibratorService.Stub
     }
 
     private boolean doVibratorExists() {
-        synchronized (mInputDeviceVibrators) {
-            return !mInputDeviceVibrators.isEmpty() || vibratorExists();
-        }
+        // For now, we choose to ignore the presence of input devices that have vibrators
+        // when reporting whether the device has a vibrator.  Applications often use this
+        // information to decide whether to enable certain features so they expect the
+        // result of hasVibrator() to be constant.  For now, just report whether
+        // the device has a built-in vibrator.
+        //synchronized (mInputDeviceVibrators) {
+        //    return !mInputDeviceVibrators.isEmpty() || vibratorExists();
+        //}
+        return vibratorExists();
     }
 
     private void doVibratorOn(long millis) {