2006-09-30 21:21:15

by Pete Zaitcev

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: appletouch vs. usbhid

Dear Dmitry:

A user filed a bug here which seems to indicate that hid lacks needed
exclusions for Apple pointers:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208721
Do you think we should be adding QUIRK_IGNORE for these?
Perhaps conditional on CONFIG_USB_APPLETOUCH?

We used to have those IGNORE quirks for Wacom, but then started to ignore
all Wacoms. We seem to be not at that point with Apple yet, and also they
have varying vendor IDs.

Cheers,
-- Pete


2006-10-01 02:17:44

by Dmitry Torokhov

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: appletouch vs. usbhid

Hi Pete,

On Saturday 30 September 2006 17:20, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> Dear Dmitry:
>
> A user filed a bug here which seems to indicate that hid lacks needed
> exclusions for Apple pointers:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208721
> Do you think we should be adding QUIRK_IGNORE for these?

Yes, I think we should.

> Perhaps conditional on CONFIG_USB_APPLETOUCH?

No, I think we should just do that unconditionally and have users select
appletouch driver.

>
> We used to have those IGNORE quirks for Wacom, but then started to ignore
> all Wacoms. We seem to be not at that point with Apple yet, and also they
> have varying vendor IDs.
>

Ping Cheng swore that Wacom never produced HID-compiant device and that
it would be easier for her if we blacklisted Wacom as vendor in HID...

--
Dmitry

2006-10-01 07:54:29

by Pete Zaitcev

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: appletouch vs. usbhid

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:17:39 -0400, Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday 30 September 2006 17:20, Pete Zaitcev wrote:

> > A user filed a bug here which seems to indicate that hid lacks needed
> > exclusions for Apple pointers:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208721
> > Do you think we should be adding QUIRK_IGNORE for these?
>
> Yes, I think we should.
>
> > Perhaps conditional on CONFIG_USB_APPLETOUCH?
>
> No, I think we should just do that unconditionally and have users select
> appletouch driver.

The reporter sent /proc/bus/usb/devices, and the situation seems
clearer now. Perhaps this explains why authors of appletouch didn't
add exclusions themselves.

T: Bus=01 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=01 Cnt=01 Dev#= 4 Spd=12 MxCh= 0
D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
P: Vendor=05ac ProdID=0218 Rev= 0.64
S: Manufacturer=Apple Computer
S: Product=Apple Internal Keyboard / Trackpad
C:* #Ifs= 3 Cfg#= 1 Atr=a0 MxPwr= 40mA
I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=01 Prot=01 Driver=usbhid
E: Ad=83(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 8 Ivl=8ms
I: If#= 1 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=01 Prot=02 Driver=appletouch
E: Ad=81(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 64 Ivl=8ms
I: If#= 2 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=03(HID ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=usbhid
E: Ad=84(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 1 Ivl=8ms

Since it's a multi-interface device, it can't be blacklisted by the
existing quirk bits, can it?

-- Pete