From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chr Subject: Cleaning up the USBHID's blacklist. Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 23:24:05 +0200 Message-ID: <200707312324.06116.chunkeey@web.de> References: <200707240228.39421.chunkeey@web.de> <200707301611.08758.chunkeey@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: To: Jiri Kosina Cc: linux-input@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday, 31. July 2007, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Chr wrote: > > > Ok, found it " hid_blacklist is alphabetically sorted blacklist by quirk > > type. " But is there a Order for the bitfields? e.g > > shouldn't: hid-quriks.c (line 439, 440) > > { USB_VENDOR_ID_APPLE, USB_DEVICE_ID_APPLE_FOUNTAIN_ANSI, > > HID_QUIRK_POWERBOOK_HAS_FN | HID_QUIRK_IGNORE_MOUSE } > > be: > > {..., ..., HID_QUIRK_IGNORE_MOUSE | HID_QUIRK_POWERBOOK_HAS_FN } > > This could be a possible cleanup for hid_blacklist[], if you are going to > make a patch I will happily accept it. > > Thanks, > Ok! I'll make a patch.. But I have one (final?) question. Since I am sometimes stuck to 80x25 console... can we alphabetically sort the blacklist by the Vendor (the first field), instead of the quirk field(last field)? Or is there a technical/theoretical reason behind it? Thanks, Chr.