HID re-integration

[Vitali Lovich]

I want it in because I think it makes a lot of sense.  I think the libusbk backend is more important, but if you feel that you can get both done, then go for it.

-Vitali

On Jan 31, 2012, at 9:57 AM, Pete Batard wrote:

> On 2012.01.31 17:30, Vitali Lovich wrote:
>> I'd prefer getting libusbk support before HID support.  I can do the
>> OSX backend.  There's also HIDAPI which is dual BSD/GPLv3, so we can
>> look at it for hints about implementation.
> 
> The the main reason I'm proposing doing HID before libusbK/win32 is that we already have it [1], as opposed to the new K/win32 implementation which needs to be redone (can't use the K branch).
> 
> Even after HID was removed by Peter, I kept an HID branch up. Granted, it's not been updated for a while, but I think it shouldn't be too much trouble to do so => HID *should* be relatively easy to get back in for Windows. And since this is handled as a new driver, just like K and win32 are, it will be easier for me to start from here and then add K/win32 than do the opposite, because I will have to update 2 branches updated otherwise (-pbatard and HID) when adding K/win32.
> 
> That is, provided we want Windows/HID back in libusbx.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> /Pete
> 
> [1] http://git.libusb.org/?p=libusb-pbatard.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/HID;js=1
> 
> _______________________________________________
> libusbx mailing list
> libusbx at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/libusbx