On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.08.14 00:21, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> BTW, libusbx Windows also does not support Multiple HID
>> top level collections (only the first top level collection will be
>> used). The situation is a bit similar here.
>
> Yeah, but I don't think
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 9:51 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.08.16 04:27, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> And hopefully now Pete
>> or others can come out a proper fix with all the information.
>
> I have way too much lined up, so I have to drop stuff that I know I'll
> never get a chance to look at. Devi
On 2013.08.16 04:27, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> And hopefully now Pete
> or others can come out a proper fix with all the information.
I have way too much lined up, so I have to drop stuff that I know I'll
never get a chance to look at. Devising a fix with regards to IADs is
one of those.
If someone
On Aug 16, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
>
> I wonder if this fully applies from the libusbx point of view.
>
> My understanding of its interface (but please mind my so far limited
> experience with the library) was that it enumerates really the
> "physical" devices, even if composite. I
Hi Tim,
On 15-Aug-13 20:24, Tim Roberts wrote:
>> What do you mean by "You don't need the IAD"? Do you mean
>> you do not need to parse the IAD descriptors?
>
> Right. The IAD is a simple descriptor. It only provides two things:
> the class/subclass/protocol for the interface group, and the int
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> Secondly how does usbccgp.sys rewrites the configuration
>> descriptors?
>
> It eliminates everything related to the interfaces that you did not
> claim in your INF. If you claimed MI_03, and you have an IAD for
> interf
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> If you are not driving the composite device, then usbccgp.sys rewrites
>> the configuration descriptors.
> Firstly, so device with IAD can be a non-composite device. My
> understanding was that an IAD device would be a composite
> device. Now it seems that was a wrong underst
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
> Pete Batard wrote:
>> On 2013.08.14 00:21, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>>> The 2nd option is not possible without changes in libusbx. Right now
>>> it is not possible to access the other interfaces other than the first
>>> interface in an interface co
Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.08.14 00:21, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> The 2nd option is not possible without changes in libusbx. Right now
>> it is not possible to access the other interfaces other than the first
>> interface in an interface collection of a USB IAD device as of
>> now, even though the s
Hi Xiaofan,
>> I would be curious to know, whether you see some principial issue with
>> the suggested approach of simply assigning the same backend to all of
>> the interfaces from the IAD, based on the knowledge that Windows always
>> puts them under responsibility of the same driver. As mentio
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> On 14-Aug-13 1:52, Pete Batard wrote:
>> As far as WinUSB is concerned, I think the best we can get is
>> WinUsb_GetAssociatedInterface(), but that what we're already trying to
>> use.
>
> I saw this call in winusbx_claim_interface, but in my us
On 14-Aug-13 1:52, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2013.08.14 00:21, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> The 2nd option is not possible without changes in libusbx. Right now
>> it is not possible to access the other interfaces other than the first
>> interface in an interface collection of a USB IAD device as of
>> now
On 2013.08.14 00:21, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> The 2nd option is not possible without changes in libusbx. Right now
> it is not possible to access the other interfaces other than the first
> interface in an interface collection of a USB IAD device as of
> now, even though the supported driver (eg: WinU
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Jan Becvar wrote:
>
> The composite parent workaround is good enough for me in the moment, it
> just might become limiting in the future, that's why I raised the
> question...
The question is perfectly legitimate. The solution on the other
hand, will take time. An
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Pete Batard wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On 2013.08.13 16:15, Jan Becvar wrote:
>> Forgot to add that my idea/hope was that libusbx, when setting backend
>> of a composite interface, could check if this is not by chance first
>> interface of an IAD-collection and if so, as
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Tim Roberts wrote:
>
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> > I think there is a way to hack the inf-file generated by
> > Zadig to install WinUSB driver for each interface.
> >
> > Interface 0 --> MI_00
> > Interface 1 --> MI_01
> > Interface 2 --> MI_02
>
> No, that won't work
Hi Pete,
>> Forgot to add that my idea/hope was that libusbx, when setting backend
>> of a composite interface, could check if this is not by chance first
>> interface of an IAD-collection and if so, assign the same backend to the
>> other interfaces of the collection as well. But I don't know in
Hi Jan,
On 2013.08.13 16:15, Jan Becvar wrote:
> Forgot to add that my idea/hope was that libusbx, when setting backend
> of a composite interface, could check if this is not by chance first
> interface of an IAD-collection and if so, assign the same backend to the
> other interfaces of the collec
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> I think there is a way to hack the inf-file generated by
> Zadig to install WinUSB driver for each interface.
>
> Interface 0 --> MI_00
> Interface 1 --> MI_01
> Interface 2 --> MI_02
No, that won't work. When you have an IAD that wraps those three
interfaces, usbccgp only c
On 13-Aug-13 17:07, Jan Becvar wrote:
> Note that this hack does not do any IAD parsing, it's hardcoded for the
> single device of interest with "known" device, therefore it blindly sets
> the backend of IF 0 also to IF 1&2.
Forgot to add that my idea/hope was that libusbx, when setting backend
o
> Now it seems to me currently it is not possible using
> Zadig/libwdi to achieve this.
I agree. As far as I understand, Zadig/libwdi simply offers what it gets
from the system - i.e. the "subdevices" generated by usbccgp.sys (one
subdevice only for the IAD).
I assume no inf-hacking would help
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> On 13-Aug-13 16:16, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> Hmm, I am not be totally correct. I just tried one USB Web
>> Camera which is an IAD device, the first collection has two
>> interfaces (Interface count =2, Interface and Interface 1),
>> the second co
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> On 13-Aug-13 11:36, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> As replied by Tim in that thread, each interface of a USB composite
>> device is a separated one. If you only installed the supported driver for
>> the first interface, (Interface 0), then you can only
On 13-Aug-13 16:16, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> Hmm, I am not be totally correct. I just tried one USB Web
> Camera which is an IAD device, the first collection has two
> interfaces (Interface count =2, Interface and Interface 1),
> the second collection has two interface (Interface count =2,
> Interface
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have a question about a possible problem of accessing composite
> devices using interface association from libusbx. Not sure, but the
> problem might be related to the maling list thread
> "libusb_claim_interface() error with
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
>> From my understanding of MS documentation related to IAD's handling, e.g.
>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff537107%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>> I believed that in pres
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> On 13-Aug-13 11:36, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> As replied by Tim in that thread, each interface of a USB composite
>> device is a separated one. If you only installed the supported driver for
>> the first interface, (Interface 0), then you can only
On 13-Aug-13 11:36, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> As replied by Tim in that thread, each interface of a USB composite
> device is a separated one. If you only installed the supported driver for
> the first interface, (Interface 0), then you can only claim interface 0
> with libusbx, not the other two inter
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Jan Becvar wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I have a question about a possible problem of accessing composite
> devices using interface association from libusbx. Not sure, but the
> problem might be related to the maling list thread
> "libusb_claim_interface() error with
Hi everybody,
I have a question about a possible problem of accessing composite
devices using interface association from libusbx. Not sure, but the
problem might be related to the maling list thread
"libusb_claim_interface() error with usbK driver"
(http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.p
30 matches
Mail list logo
