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 usbtouchscreen, > which is where they are currently bound. Okay! > > Some of these also work with usbhid (using quirks=0x20000048 to prevent 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 touch?). > > Others reportedly do *not* work with usbhid (this is Max): > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/25/127 > > 4. Some devices with class HID, protocol None do *not* work with usbtouchscreen, > which is where they are currently bound. No bueno. Here's one (this is > Sebastian): > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.input/31710 > > I suspect these are all multitouch devices, but I am not sure. > > 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 enough > for that to be a secondary concern). > > > 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 devices > work fine with current usbhid. > > Max, can you test this for us? I.e. does your touch screen work with current > usbhid using quirks=0x20000048? The following modprobe snippet might be > helpful: > > options usbhid quirks=0x0eef:0x0001:0x40000048 > install usbtouchscreen /bin/false > > 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 multitouch 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, protocol None that does not work with current usbhid, I propose we bind these to usbhid 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 -- Forest Bond http://www.forestbond.com/ http://www.rapidrollout.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
