On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:39 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010, Gunn, Brian wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

I sent a new version of the patch, which uses "HIDP_TRANS_SET_REPORT |
HIDP_DATA_RTYPE_FEATURE" for the first byte. Would that work?

Actually for my application it doesn't.  I use HIDP_TRANS_DATA |

HIDP_DATA_RTYPE_OUTPUT.

quoted

Perhaps allowing the user the choice of what do to here is more flexible.

Except that it would mean different code for USB and Bluetooth
versions...

So do we need a method of setting which device reports we're sending before writing them?

Having separate methods for feature and output reports should be 
sufficient and general enough, right?

Most likely, yes. Feature is enough for the 2 devices I provided patches
for. Could you please comment on what you'd like the implementation of
this to look like? This simple bug fix is turning into a lot more
to-and-fro than I would have anticipated.

Cheers