From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gerecke Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/18] HID: wacom: generic: Support and use 'Custom HID' mode and usages Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:09:40 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20161006212231.31440-1-killertofu@gmail.com> <20161007221653.26941-1-killertofu@gmail.com> <20161007221653.26941-7-killertofu@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pf0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:33817 "EHLO mail-pf0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755582AbcJRRJt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 13:09:49 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f170.google.com with SMTP id r16so7308pfg.1 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:09:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Jiri Kosina Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Tissoires , Ping Cheng , Ping Cheng , Aaron Skomra , Jason Gerecke On 10/18/2016 08:26 AM, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Jason Gerecke wrote: > >> @@ -1711,7 +1736,7 @@ static int wacom_wac_finger_event(struct hid_device *hdev, >> >> >> if (usage->usage_index + 1 == field->report_count) { >> - if (usage->hid == wacom_wac->features.last_slot_field) >> + if (equivalent_usage == wacom_wac->features.last_slot_field) > > What tree is this based on please? In all the codebase I have, > last_slot_field is a member field of wacom_wac's hid_data, not a member of > struct wacom_features. > This was based on your for-4.9/wacom tree, whose tip (for me) was commit 1924e05 ("HID: wacom - add touch_arbitration parameter to wacom module"). It looks like my tree only has commit 601a22f ("HID: wacom: Report input events for each finger on generic devices") but not commit 003f50a ("HID: wacom: Update last_slot_field during pre_report phase"). Not sure why though. What would you like me to do? Jason --- Now instead of four in the eights place / you’ve got three, ‘Cause you added one / (That is to say, eight) to the two, / But you can’t take seven from three, / So you look at the sixty-fours....