On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > thanks a lot. Could you please check any kernel after the commit
> > 46386b587086c8d2698222a031bf749688464032 (for example 2.6.22-rc1)?
> > That should be the definitive fix for all issues with zeroing of
> > unused bits in output reports.
> Does no
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
did you make any progress here please? I am going to merge the patch,
still I'd be understand what caused it (on the other hand from Diogo's
last comment it doesn't seem 100% certain that we cased it somewhere
around 2.6.20).
I fina
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > did you make any progress here please? I am going to merge the patch,
> > still I'd be understand what caused it (on the other hand from Diogo's
> > last comment it doesn't seem 100% certain that we cased it somewhere
> > around 2.6.20).
> I finally
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
I'd of course happily merge the fix which initializes the value
properly into my tree, but I would be curious what broke it, to double
check that we didn't break anything else along with it.
Okay, I'll get back to you in a few days
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > I'd of course happily merge the fix which initializes the value
> > properly into my tree, but I would be curious what broke it, to double
> > check that we didn't break anything else along with it.
> Okay, I'll get back to you in a few days :)
Hi A
Anssi Hannula wrote:
> Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> >
> >>> do you have any idea what caused this to happen in 2.6.21 and not in
> >>> earlier versions?
> >> Nope. Do you think it would be useful for me to bisect 2.6.20-2.6.21?
> >
> > I'd of course happily
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
do you have any idea what caused this to happen in 2.6.21 and not in
earlier versions?
Nope. Do you think it would be useful for me to bisect 2.6.20-2.6.21?
I'd of course happily merge the fix which initializes the value properly
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> > do you have any idea what caused this to happen in 2.6.21 and not in
> > earlier versions?
> Nope. Do you think it would be useful for me to bisect 2.6.20-2.6.21?
I'd of course happily merge the fix which initializes the value properly
into my tree,
Jiri Kosina wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
When setting the autocentering of PID devices, PID_DIRECTION_ENABLE is
not being explicitely set to 1. This results in autocentering working
only on the vertical axis when this field is preset to 0. This seems to
happen since 2.6.21
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Anssi Hannula wrote:
> When setting the autocentering of PID devices, PID_DIRECTION_ENABLE is
> not being explicitely set to 1. This results in autocentering working
> only on the vertical axis when this field is preset to 0. This seems to
> happen since 2.6.21.
Hi Anssi,
From: Diogo Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
When setting the autocentering of PID devices, PID_DIRECTION_ENABLE is
not being explicitely set to 1. This results in autocentering working
only on the vertical axis when this field is preset to 0. This seems to
happen since 2.6.21.
Fix that by settin
11 matches
Mail list logo
