Re: RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

On Fri, September 2, 2016 3:32 am, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Simon Wood wrote: >> After copying the HEAD 'hid-lg.[ch]' and 'hid-lg4ff.[ch]' from 4.7, >> there is a minimal patch (example attached) required to get the build >> working. > >

Re: RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

On Fri, September 2, 2016 3:32 am, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Simon Wood wrote: >> After copying the HEAD 'hid-lg.[ch]' and 'hid-lg4ff.[ch]' from 4.7, >> there is a minimal patch (example attached) required to get the build >> working. > > Don't you need

Re: RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

Hi Simon, On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Simon Wood wrote: > Hi all, > I received a question regarding back-porting the support for the G29 > racing wheel to 3.10 (Android in particular), and after some collaborative > work we determined that changes between 3.10 and 4.7

Re: RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

Hi Simon, On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Simon Wood wrote: > Hi all, > I received a question regarding back-porting the support for the G29 > racing wheel to 3.10 (Android in particular), and after some collaborative > work we determined that changes between 3.10 and 4.7 are actually pretty >

RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

Hi all, I received a question regarding back-porting the support for the G29 racing wheel to 3.10 (Android in particular), and after some collaborative work we determined that changes between 3.10 and 4.7 are actually pretty minimal and self contained. After copying the HEAD 'hid-lg.[ch]' and

RFC: Backport HID-logitech to 3.10?

Hi all, I received a question regarding back-porting the support for the G29 racing wheel to 3.10 (Android in particular), and after some collaborative work we determined that changes between 3.10 and 4.7 are actually pretty minimal and self contained. After copying the HEAD 'hid-lg.[ch]' and