Re: matching against composite/HID device

• Subject: Re: matching against composite/HID device
• From: Andy Peters <email@hidden>
• Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:42:30 -0700
• Delivered-to: email@hidden
• Delivered-to: email@hidden
• Organization: ASP Digital
• User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910

Barry Twycross wrote:

At 10:17 AM -0800 3/18/05, Rhoads Hollowell wrote:

Actually, making a device with a single interface a composite device is a very good idea,

It also makes it comply with the spec.

The defined class codes <http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class> specify most class codes for interfaces only. There are very few class codes which are defined for the device to use.

I'm pretty sure that the HID spec specifically stats that a HID device should have device class == 0, and the HID is specified by the interfaces.

On a practical note, using a single interface in a composite device means that there is no difference in the handling of single and multiple interface devices, which means its less likely to go wrong. Single interface composite devices probably make up 95% of the extant USB devices.

Makes sense.  Thanks!

-a

_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Usb mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/usb/email@hidden

• Prev by Date: Re: matching against composite/HID device
• Next by Date: Re: matching against composite/HID device
• Previous by thread: Re: matching against composite/HID device
• Next by thread: Re: matching against composite/HID device
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread