On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > What else might happen in different order for windows vs linux? Tried both
> > of these suggestions but to no avail. Also, is usbmouse.c affected by
> > these tests? I was assuming no and using the usbhid driver.
>
> usbmouse.c tries not to talk to the device more than necessary exactly
> to work in all conditions, so it doesn't set the idle time not ask for
> the descriptor, assuming boot protocol layout. If usbmouse.c doesn't
> work, something is wrong in the usb core and/or hcd parts, or the mouse
> requires these calls to work, which would be hard to believe.
I've mentioned this before with noone commenting specifically but I need
to ask again. This device has 2 interfaces reporting their class, sub,
proto as 3, 1, 1 (keyboard) and 3, 0, 0 (mouse). usbhid detects the mouse
as a pointer but in order for usbmouse.c to detect it I had to hack the
following and I wonder if usbmouse.c might still be broken due to the
mis-report of the mouse interface? With this hack a regular usb mouse
still works and the touchpad in the keyboard gets assigned the usbmouse
driver.
static struct usb_device_id usb_mouse_id_table [] = {
{ USB_INTERFACE_INFO(3, 0, 0) },
{ USB_INTERFACE_INFO(3, 1, 2) },
{ } /* Terminating entry */
};
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
