Hi, Martin. I no longer have any "ownership" of usblp.c or the hpoj.sourceforge.net project (HP management decisions beyond my control).
Good catch. Along the same lines, libusb/usb[dev]fs (at least in 2.4) has a similar problem when trying to do device ID requests that way rather than through usblp.c (formerly printer.c). Since this request is tagged as being directed at a specific interface, it expects the "index" to be exactly the interface number (0x00II instead of the correct 0xIIAA), and complains if that numbered interface hasn't already been "reserved" (I may be forgetting the right terminology here, since I haven't looked at any of this for a long time). David Martin Habets wrote: > I was asked to forward this to you directly. Let me know if you > do not you own usblp.c in 2.6. > > Thanks, > Martin > > ----- Forwarded message from Martin Habets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- > > From: Martin Habets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] usblp printer GET_DEVICE_ID fix > Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:35:16 +0100 > > There is a problem in the GET_DEVICE_ID ioctl() implementation. The patch bel > ow > (against 2.6 current) fixes the code to be according to the official usb prin > ter spec. > > Most printers are not affected by this fix, as they use interface 0 and alter > nate 0. > For those, nothing changes. But my printer/scanner uses interface 1 for the p > rinter. > Also attached is parts of kern.log before and after the patch. > > Best regards, > Martin Habets ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials Free Linux tutorial presented by Daniel Robbins, President and CEO of GenToo technologies. Learn everything from fundamentals to system administration.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1470&alloc_id=3638&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
