On Fri, 5 May 2006, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Fri, May 05, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 04, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > > This shows that without the blacklist entry for the IBM keyboard, the
> > > usbhid driver sends a GET_REPORT request. Lots of HID devices are known
> > > to choke on
On Fri, May 05, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > This shows that without the blacklist entry for the IBM keyboard, the
> > usbhid driver sends a GET_REPORT request. Lots of HID devices are known
> > to choke on these requests; that's why there are so many blacklis
On Thu, May 04, Alan Stern wrote:
> This shows that without the blacklist entry for the IBM keyboard, the
> usbhid driver sends a GET_REPORT request. Lots of HID devices are known
> to choke on these requests; that's why there are so many blacklist entries
> with HID_QUIRK_NOGET.
Yes, I had
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > As for 2.6.16... Can you log in without using the keyboard (say over
> > ssh)? If you can, then use usbmon to trace what's happening with the
> > keyboard. Maybe rmmod usbhid and modprobe usbhid while you're
>
On Thu, 4 May 2006, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > You should also try adding a backlist entry with HID_QUIRK_NOGET for your
> > keyboard.
>
> Yes, that seems to fix it. I have added this. lsusb shows 2 keyboards
> with different ids. Should I add both (3005 and 3
On Wed, May 03, Alan Stern wrote:
> You should also try adding a backlist entry with HID_QUIRK_NOGET for your
> keyboard.
Yes, that seems to fix it. I have added this. lsusb shows 2 keyboards
with different ids. Should I add both (3005 and 3006)?
+#define USB_VENDOR_ID_IBM 0x04b3
On Tue, May 02, Alan Stern wrote:
> As for 2.6.16... Can you log in without using the keyboard (say over
> ssh)? If you can, then use usbmon to trace what's happening with the
> keyboard. Maybe rmmod usbhid and modprobe usbhid while you're
> monitoring, so we can see the keyboard initializa
On Wed, 3 May 2006, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, Olaf Hering wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 02, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > > Are you certain this patch is responsible for the breakage? That is, did
> > > you build two kernels that differ only in whether or not this patch is
> > > included
On Wed, May 03, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > Are you certain this patch is responsible for the breakage? That is, did
> > you build two kernels that differ only in whether or not this patch is
> > included and compare their behavior? (I don't trust the git-bi
On Tue, May 02, Alan Stern wrote:
> Are you certain this patch is responsible for the breakage? That is, did
> you build two kernels that differ only in whether or not this patch is
> included and compare their behavior? (I don't trust the git-bisect
> procedure to do this correctly.)
2.6.1
On Tue, 2 May 2006, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > This patch (as605) removes the private udev->serialize semaphore, relying
> > instead on the locking provided by the embedded struct device's semaphore.
> > The changes are confined to the core, except that the u
On Thu, Nov 17, Alan Stern wrote:
> This patch (as605) removes the private udev->serialize semaphore, relying
> instead on the locking provided by the embedded struct device's semaphore.
> The changes are confined to the core, except that the usb_trylock_device
> routine now uses the return c
12 matches
Mail list logo
