From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Forest Bond Subject: Re: Fixing 0eef:0001 (eGalax) driver binding Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:03:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20131016200322.GA17106@alittletooquiet.net> References: <20131015182701.GD14822@alittletooquiet.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q" Return-path: Received: from storm.alittletooquiet.net ([67.23.28.199]:47711 "EHLO storm.alittletooquiet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761229Ab3JPUTC (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:19:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131015182701.GD14822@alittletooquiet.net> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sebastian =?iso-8859-1?Q?Dalfu=DF?= , Jiri Kosina , Daniel Ritz , Max Weninger , Dmitry Torokhov , Christian Engelmayer --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 02:27:01PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote: > 3. Some devices with class HID, protocol None work fine with usbtouchscre= en, > which is where they are currently bound. Okay! >=20 > Some of these also work with usbhid (using quirks=3D0x20000048 to prev= ent it > from being ignored). All of the ones I have here are like this. I'm = not > sure if there is a reason to prefer one driver over the other (dual to= uch?). >=20 > Others reportedly do *not* work with usbhid (this is Max): >=20 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/25/127 >=20 > 4. Some devices with class HID, protocol None do *not* work with usbtouch= screen, > which is where they are currently bound. No bueno. Here's one (this = is > Sebastian): >=20 > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.input/31710 >=20 > I suspect these are all multitouch devices, but I am not sure. >=20 > So we need to figure out the device driver mapping that supports the most > devices (or regresses the fewest, although I think we've messed this up e= nough > for that to be a secondary concern). >=20 >=20 > What I'm hoping is that the report in #3 that led to class HID, protocol = None > devices being bound to usbtouchscreen is no longer accurate and these dev= ices > work fine with current usbhid. >=20 > Max, can you test this for us? I.e. does your touch screen work with cur= rent > usbhid using quirks=3D0x20000048? The following modprobe snippet might be > helpful: >=20 > options usbhid quirks=3D0x0eef:0x0001:0x40000048 > install usbtouchscreen /bin/false >=20 > If Max's touch screen works with current usbhid, I think we can drop the = special > case that binds it to usbtouchscreen and we're done! If not, things will= be > more complicated (e.g. we may have to consider whether a device is multit= ouch to > decide if we should bind usbhid or usbtouchscreen). Max reported to me off-list that he no longer has his touch screen, so this testing most likely will not be taking place. Unless someone can identify an EETI/eGalax touch screen with class HID, pro= tocol None that does not work with current usbhid, I propose we bind these to usb= hid instead of usbtouchscreen and see if anything breaks. This will fix one regression (Sebastian's) at the risk of re-introducing another one (Max's).= But I think we'll actually end up with both problems fixed. I think I could also argue that if we're going to break a device, it should= be the one that says it's HID but isn't, not the one that actually is what it = says it is. Hopefully it won't come down to that. ;) Thoughts? Thanks, Forest --=20 Forest Bond http://www.forestbond.com/ http://www.rapidrollout.com/ --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlJe8QoACgkQRO4fQQdv5AzUxgCg0kvS2snZL+dxKOr77V3Kl3Qn HygAn16uNY4TppaPO+bRAAePJr6WxGxK =5qlk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Q68bSM7Ycu6FN28Q--