Hi Dmitry,
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:07:04PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 01:33:50PM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
> > From: Forest Bond <forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Certain eGalax devices expose an interface with class HID and protocol
> > None. Some work with usbhid and some work with usbtouchscreen, but
> > there is no easy way to differentiate. Sending an eGalax diagnostic
> > packet seems to kick them all into using the right protocol for
> > usbtouchscreen, so we can continue to bind them all there (as opposed to
> > handing some off to usbhid).
> >
> > This fixes a regression for devices that were claimed by (and worked
> > with) usbhid prior to commit 139ebe8dc80dd74cb2ac9f5603d18fbf5cff049f
> > ("Input: usbtouchscreen - fix eGalax HID ignoring"), which made
> > usbtouchscreen claim them instead. With this patch they will still be
> > claimed by usbtouchscreen, but they will actually report events
> > usbtouchscreen can understand. Note that these devices will be limited
> > to the usbtouchscreen feature set so e.g. dual touch features are not
> > supported.
> >
> > I have the distinct pleasure of needing to support devices of both types
> > and have tested accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Forest Bond <forest.bond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Applied, thank you Forest.
Great, thanks a lot.
The other piece to this puzzle is that usbhid should blacklist these devices to
avoid binding if it happens to be loaded before usbtouchscreen. To do this,
usbhid needs to be able to blacklist devices based on interface protocol (right
now it only supports blacklist on VID + PID).
Would you accept a patch set that implements this?
Thanks,
Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
http://www.rapidrollout.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
