On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:24:23 +0200 Jindrich Makovicka <makovick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 23:41:02 +0100 > Bastien Nocera <hadess@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 22:53 +0200, Jindrich Makovicka wrote: > > > Updated to current git: > > > > > > --- hid-core.c.orig 2010-05-25 22:04:58.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ hid-core.c 2010-05-25 22:08:53.791241376 +0200 > > > @@ -1759,7 +1759,8 @@ > > > > > > /* we need to kill them here, otherwise they will stay > > > allocated to > > > * wait for coming driver */ > > > - if (!(hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE) && > > > hid_ignore(hdev)) > > > + if (!(hdev->quirks & HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE) > > > + && (hid_ignore(hdev) || (hdev->quirks & > > > HID_QUIRK_IGNORE))) return -ENODEV; > > > > > > /* XXX hack, any other cleaner solution after the driver > > > core > > > > Wouldn't that mean that a device with HID_QUIRK_IGNORE for which we > > pass HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE, would still be ignored? > > With HID_QUIRK_NO_IGNORE, the whole expression will be FALSE, and the > part after && wouldn't be even evaluated in both current and patched > version. So, NO_IGNORE takes precedence over IGNORE. > Ping? -- Jindrich Makovicka -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
