Everything's the same but internally I rewrote it to handle both flavors of the firmware based on the detected PID. The new PIDs use a hid output report to do all the stuff the old version did via control messages.
_____________ Andy On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:11 PM -0700, "Christopher Becker" <christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com>> wrote: That's too funny. You guessed by the product ID I suppose :). Thanks for rewriting that. I will definitely have a look. Are the command line options the same or is everything different? ~ Chris On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 10:34 PM, Andrew Silverman <andre...@microsoft.com<mailto:andre...@microsoft.com>> wrote: If you're trying to rewrite the Linux tools for the ultimarc u360, I've already done it- posted on github under andrewsil1/ultrastik tools. _____________ Andy On Sun, Apr 19, 2015 at 9:15 PM -0700, "christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com>" <christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks Andrew and Charles for the responses. @Andrew: At least now I know I'm not crazy :) I'm working with a USB driver for a joystick that uses libhid. If I ever have to rewrite it, I will definitely go down the HIDAPI route. Much appreciated! ~ Chris On 4/19/2015 9:18 PM, Andrew Silverman wrote: > My recollection is that this is already a known bug that was never officially > patched, as evidently libhid has long since been considered obsolete in favor > of newer HID libraries (http://www.signal11.us/oss/hidapi/). I have the same > change in my own code that still works with the existing library. > > -----Original Message----- > From: libhid-discuss > [mailto:libhid-discuss-bounces+andrewsi=microsoft....@lists.alioth.debian.org] > On Behalf Of > christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.alan.bec...@gmail.com> > Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2015 7:15 PM > To: > libhid-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org<mailto:libhid-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org> > Subject: [libhid-discuss] LIBHID: Latest SVN Trunk: hid_opening.c: > hid_compare_usb_device(): product_id matched incorrectly > > Hi: > > I ran into a situation with libhid where a USB product ID of 0x0501 was > matching on a USB device with a product ID of 0x0503. I narrowed it down in > hid_compare_usb_device() to the line below: > ----- > ((dev->descriptor.idProduct & match->product_id) == match->product_id) > ----- > > Tracing the values of the above, both match and dev descriptor, the values > were showing correct (0x0501, 0x0503), but still evaluating as matched. > > If I change the above code to just: > ----- > (dev->descriptor.idProduct == match->product_id) > ----- > > Then the product ID's match correctly, and only 0x0501 matches 0x0501. > Any ideas on why 0x0503 would match 0x0501 on the original code? > > Actual hex codes were set/used in the passed HIDInterfaceMatcher struct. > > As a side note, the vendor ID did not experience this problem. Latest SVN > trunk (2015-04-19). > > Thanks. > > > ~ Chris > > _______________________________________________ > libhid-discuss mailing list > libhid-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org<mailto:libhid-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org> > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libhid-discuss > http://libhid.alioth.debian.org/
_______________________________________________ libhid-discuss mailing list libhid-discuss@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libhid-discuss http://libhid.alioth.debian.org/