On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Brian Magnuson wrote:
Hello,
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Brian Magnuson wrote:
> * Brian Magnuson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-06-03 11:37]:
>> I can tell you without even testing that it's not going to work. The
data
>> length returned by the wireless controller is alway 29 bytes, but as
far
>> as I can tell there is no field that indicates that length.
>
> Ok, looks like I was a bit hasty. Looking at the data again there does
> appear to be a length field in the returned data however.
>
> 1) It's 19 bytes rather than 20. This is a internel data format length
> though. The USB data returned is still 29 bytes long.
> 2) You still need to apply to four byte shift for it to be in the
"right"
> place.
Oic. I somehow missed the shift. Sorry for that. So in your process packet
function you got 19 on position 5?
Yup.
Ok. So if we'll change the [PATCH 2/4] to have
if (data[1] < 14)
return;
You will be probably happy, right?
And because of the four bytes shift I suppose to drop this (3/4) patch and
use yours instead. If you wan't add
Signed-off-by: Jan Kratochvil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
to your patch.
Jan
And what is on last five bytes? I
suppose that the rest is the same as in wired controller.
I'm not someplace where I can check for sure right now, but it didn't seem
to
be useful data. Might have even been all 0s. I'll be able to check on that
later tonight.
-Brian
