On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>> > The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
>> > hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
>> > It means that any configuration
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>
>> > The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
>> > hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
>> > It means that any configuration retrieved after the
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
> > hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
> > It means that any configuration retrieved after the initial hid_hw_start
> > would not be exposed to user space
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> > The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
> > hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
> > It means that any configuration retrieved after the initial hid_hw_start
> > would not be exposed to user space
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
> hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
> It means that any configuration retrieved after the initial hid_hw_start
>
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Benjamin Tissoires
wrote:
> The current custom solution for the G920 is not the best because
> hid_hw_start() is not called at the end of the .probe().
> It means that any configuration retrieved after the initial hid_hw_start
> would not be exposed to user space
6 matches
Mail list logo