On Thu, 27 Nov 2014, Phil Dibowitz wrote:
>> - printf(" Serial Number: %s\n\t%s\n\t%s\n", get_serial(1),
>> - get_serial(2), get_serial(3));
>> + if (strlen(mh_get_serial()) != 0)
>> + printf(" Serial Number: %s\n", mh_get_serial());
>> + else
>> + printf(" Serial Number: %s\n\t%s\n\t%s\n", get_serial(1),
>> + get_serial(2), get_serial(3));
>
> How about:
>
> if (is_mh_remote()) {
>
> ?
Can't, because not all MH remotes use this weird serial number format.
The earlier ones use the more traditional one.
>> +int mh_read_file(const char *filename, uint8_t *buffer, const uint32_t
>> buflen,
>> + uint32_t *data_read)
>
> Is that 2 tabs and a space? We just nuked all our tabs! I think that should be
> 17 spaces. :)
Ooops. I don't know how that snuck in there. I'll fix in the next
version.
>> int err;
>> - if ((err = usb_set_configuration(h_hid, 1))) {
>> - debug("Failed to set device configuration: %d (%s)", err,
>> - usb_strerror());
>> - return err;
>> - }
>
> Errrrr. I'm not sure 1 is always the default on every device. This change
> terrifies me.
Heh. I figured you might ask about this. So, for one thing, this only
affects the libusbhid code (which the person who was testing the Harmony
Touch happened to be using). HIDAPI doesn't ever call Set Configuration
and we seem to be working fine there. If it would make you feel better,
maybe we can make a Get Configuration call first and then Set
Configuration if it isn't 1. Unfortunately, for the Touch (and probably
also at least the Link), calling Set Configuration when the configuration
is already set to 1 causes the device to reset.
>> uint8_t msg_ack[MH_MAX_PACKET_SIZE] =
>> - { 0xFF, 0x03, get_seq(seq), 0x02, 0x01, param, 0x01, pkts_to_send };
>> + { 0xFF, 0x03, get_seq(seq), 0x02, 0x01, param, 0x01, 0x33 };
>> + if (pkts_to_send < 0x33)
>> + msg_ack[7] = pkts_to_send;
>
> I suppose it's the same, but this logic seems backwards to me. I would do
> something like:
>
> uint8_t msg_ack[MH_MAX_PACKET_SIZE] =
> { 0xFF, 0x03, get_seq(seq), 0x02, 0x01, param, 0x01, pkts_to_send };
> // cannot be > 0x33
> if (pkts_to_send > 0x33)
> msg_ack[7] = 0x33
>
> Oh, I see why you did it the way you did - because of the ACK logic below. OK,
> I don't actually care. In theory, if we are likely to send more than 50
> packets in the common case, you should keep your logic, and if that's the
> less-common scenario you should switch it - but again, I don't actually care,
> just thinking out-loud.
Eh, it's hard to say whether we'll commonly send more or less than 50
packets. I think probably in this use case, we'll send less, but I was
thinking about another patch down the road to refactor the UpdateConfig
code to use this code, and I think in that case, we'd probably be sending
> 50 packets most of the time. So, eh, I think I'll just leave this
as-is.
>> - * MH remotes do not support SetTime() operations, but we return
>> + * Some MH remotes do not support SetTime() operations, but we return
>> * success because some higher level operations (for example, update
>> * configuration) call SetTime() and thus the whole operation would be
>> * declared a failure, which we do not want.
>> */
>
> For this patch / now, I'm fine with this, but I wonder if we should instead
> expose a _is_set_time_supported function that upper-level functions can call
> to determine if this is a sensible thing to do.
>
> By doing that, when a user asks to set time we can actually say "Sorry, your
> device doesn't support that.
Yeah, that's probably not a bad idea for the future.
Scott
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server
from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards
with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more
Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157005751&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
concordance-devel mailing list
concordance-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/concordance-devel
