That's too funny. You guessed by the product ID I suppose :). Thanks for rewriting that. I will definitely have a look. Are the command line options the same or is everything different?
~ Chris On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Andrew Silverman <[email protected]> wrote: > If you're trying to rewrite the Linux tools for the ultimarc u360, I've > already done it- posted on github under andrewsil1/ultrastik tools. > > _____________ > Andy > > > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 9:15 PM -0700, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks Andrew and Charles for the responses. > > @Andrew: At least now I know I'm not crazy :) > > I'm working with a USB driver for a joystick that uses libhid. If I ever > have to rewrite it, I will definitely go down the HIDAPI route. > > Much appreciated! > > > ~ Chris > > On 4/19/2015 9:18 PM, Andrew Silverman wrote: > > My recollection is that this is already a known bug that was never > officially patched, as evidently libhid has long since been considered > obsolete in favor of newer HID libraries ( > http://www.signal11.us/oss/hidapi/). I have the same change in my own > code that still works with the existing library. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: libhid-discuss [ > mailto:libhid-discuss-bounces+andrewsi=microsoft....@lists.alioth.debian.org > <libhid-discuss-bounces+andrewsi=microsoft....@lists.alioth.debian.org>] > On Behalf Of [email protected] > > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:15 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [libhid-discuss] LIBHID: Latest SVN Trunk: hid_opening.c: > hid_compare_usb_device(): product_id matched incorrectly > > > > Hi: > > > > I ran into a situation with libhid where a USB product ID of 0x0501 was > matching on a USB device with a product ID of 0x0503. I narrowed it down > in hid_compare_usb_device() to the line below: > > ----- > > ((dev->descriptor.idProduct & match->product_id) == match->product_id) > > ----- > > > > Tracing the values of the above, both match and dev descriptor, the > values were showing correct (0x0501, 0x0503), but still evaluating as > matched. > > > > If I change the above code to just: > > ----- > > (dev->descriptor.idProduct == match->product_id) > > ----- > > > > Then the product ID's match correctly, and only 0x0501 matches 0x0501. > > Any ideas on why 0x0503 would match 0x0501 on the original code? > > > > Actual hex codes were set/used in the passed HIDInterfaceMatcher struct. > > > > As a side note, the vendor ID did not experience this problem. Latest > SVN trunk (2015-04-19). > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > ~ Chris > > > > _______________________________________________ > > libhid-discuss mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libhid-discuss > > http://libhid.alioth.debian.org/ > >
_______________________________________________ libhid-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libhid-discuss http://libhid.alioth.debian.org/
