Re: [Nut-upsuser] Problems with usbhid-ups and CyberPower CP1500 on 2.6.0

2011-03-17 Thread Arjen de Korte
Citeren Charles Lepple clep...@gmail.com: Arjen: do we actually have any cases of reports larger than 8 bytes? Yes. At least the MGE Evolution series uses reports that are larger than 8 bytes. If so, should we mark this as a quirk for CyberPower devices? Well, I still don't understand

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Problems with usbhid-ups and CyberPower CP1500 on 2.6.0

2011-03-17 Thread Arnaud Quette
2011/3/17 Arjen de Korte nut+us...@de-korte.org Citeren Charles Lepple clep...@gmail.com: Arjen: do we actually have any cases of reports larger than 8 bytes? Yes. At least the MGE Evolution series uses reports that are larger than 8 bytes. some Eaton and Dell models too If so,

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Problems with usbhid-ups and CyberPower CP1500 on 2.6.0

2011-03-17 Thread Arjen de Korte
Citeren Charles Lepple clep...@gmail.com: If I run it under strace, the ioctls on the /dev/bus/usb file descriptor preceeding each operation not permitted error return 0, not an error code such as EPERM. That seems strange. Would you please compress and send the strace output (without -u

Re: [Nut-upsuser] Problems with usbhid-ups and CyberPower CP1500 on 2.6.0

2011-03-17 Thread Cheetah
On 3/17/2011 12:17, Arjen de Korte wrote: This patch (committed after 2.6.0 was released) claims to restore 2.4.1 behavior: http://trac.networkupstools.org/projects/nut/changeset/2893 All of the above are irrelevant here. The driver runs fine when started as root, so this must be a