On Fri, 23 May 2003 12:28:38 +0200 Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 11:04:36AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:11:06PM +0400, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > > >> > > >> I still think that the proper solution is to make this behavior the > > >> default - from reading the USB HID specs I see that the report ID is > > >> required there (even in the older HID 1.1 and 1.0 specs). > > >> > > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=105232829215380&w=2 > > >> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=105238723101273&w=2 > > > > > >I'm tending to agree with you, but it's Vojtech's call :) > > > > we (MGE) completly agree with Sergey's point of view. > > But Vojtech is the master there, and I hope to read some news > > from him soon about this point, to see how we can solve this point. > > > > As I get some mail problem, I missed some part of this thread such as > > Paul's answer to Sergey's. So, please, put me in cc of the following > > mails. > > I promise I'll find some time to go through all this and merge it as it > does look OK through the weekend. What now? This is the first patch (which changed the behavior for all devices - which I think is correct): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=104938432716643&w=2 If you don't like this change, here is another patch (just adds a quirk for APC UPSes - however, I think that adding the report ID is the correct thing to do according to the HID spec, so using a quirk for this is wrong): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-usb-devel&m=105170739620218&w=2 Also, how many devices really use report IDs in the output or feature reports? Only support for such devices might be broken with this change.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
