Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:11:03 +0200 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcus von Appen <mva@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: uhid(4) and report structures Message-ID: <4EC2C757.4060303@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <mailpost.1321385868.5489178.82004.mailing.freebsd.current@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> References: <mailpost.1321385868.5489178.82004.mailing.freebsd.current@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15.11.2011 21:29, Marcus von Appen wrote: > I wonder, if I am correct with my assumption that the usb_ctl_report* > structures mentioned in uhid(4) have to be defined and created by the > code portion that uses the USB_GET_REPORT(), USB_SET_REPORT(), > ... calls. > > In FreeBSD< 800063 we defined them in the header files of the USB > subsystem. After the rewrite those struct definitions vanished. Will > the USB_ macros mentioned in uhid(4) "just" return a byte sequence > (that's what I understand from the UHID specification) so that code, > which uses those calls, can implement its own struct container for the > information retrieved? > > Thanks for shedding some light on this. In case i am correct with what I > wrote above, it might make sense to mention it in uhid(4). In new USB stack these calls use struct usb_gen_descriptor argument. Difficult to say why it was done, but it was. To hide that I've recently added two wrapper functions to the libusbhid in HEAD: hid_get_report() and hid_set_report(). -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EC2C757.4060303>