From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anssi Hannula Subject: Re: multi-input quirk and skip output reports quirk Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:12:40 +0300 Message-ID: <47F8DA58.10705@gmail.com> References: <47F21BA7.8030306@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from pne-smtpout4-sn2.hy.skanova.net ([81.228.8.154]:33936 "EHLO pne-smtpout4-sn2.hy.skanova.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbYDFOMm (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:12:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Anssi Hannula wrote: > >> I've encountered another multi-input device that needs the skip output >> reports quirk (as it contains force feedback output reports), 0925:8866. >> However, maybe we should use another approach, dropping >> HID_QUIRK_SKIP_OUTPUT_REPORTS. Why not just *not* register the input >> device for that report in case the report didn't contain anything that >> was mapped by hidinput_configure_usage(), in hidinput_connect()? > > Oh, and I seem to have completely forgotten -- is this quirk needed at > all? Since commit 82eb12198 we ignore the non-LED output reports in > hidinput_configure_usages() altogether. > > Do you still actually see issues of devices being misconfigured due to > output reports confusion in hidinput_configure_usage() even in kernels > having this commit included? Yes. The point was that hidinput_connect() doesn't care whether all reports were ignored by hidinput_configure_usage() or not. -- Anssi Hannula