On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:39 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Gunn, Brian wrote: > > > > > > I sent a new version of the patch, which uses "HIDP_TRANS_SET_REPORT | > > > > > HIDP_DATA_RTYPE_FEATURE" for the first byte. Would that work? > > > > > > > > Actually for my application it doesn't. I use HIDP_TRANS_DATA | > > > HIDP_DATA_RTYPE_OUTPUT. > > > > > > > > Perhaps allowing the user the choice of what do to here is more flexible. > > > > > > Except that it would mean different code for USB and Bluetooth > > > versions... > > > > So do we need a method of setting which device reports we're sending before writing them? > > Having separate methods for feature and output reports should be > sufficient and general enough, right? Most likely, yes. Feature is enough for the 2 devices I provided patches for. Could you please comment on what you'd like the implementation of this to look like? This simple bug fix is turning into a lot more to-and-fro than I would have anticipated. Cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
