Nut upsdev - Dec 2005 - Non Standard USB HID UPS

Hello, I've already written to the list before about my non-standard hid
Unitek
UPS.

I've tried to use hiddev to access my UPS as its USB HID interface is the
same
as the energizerups. Nevertheless, the protocols are different and I didn't
manage to communicate with my UPS through hiddev. Moreover, the problem
described in this page http://www.vttoth.com/ER-OF800.htm about the Linux
kernel not registering as an hiddev a device that is recognized as an input
device is back in recent kernel release and I can't afford compiling my
kernel
with CONFIG_HID_USBINPUT off as I use a USB mouse.

That's why I decided to use libhid.

So here are my questions:

1.
The libhid.c and libhid.h files in the Nut CVS are completely different from the
original libhid svn files. Then what would be the correct way to use libhid from
the libhid project for my non-standard UPS ? (inclusion in NUT or package
dependancy)

2.
Using libhid matcher to identify and claim the device interface avoid the need
of defining the port on the command line or in the config file, but defining
the port seems mandatory in the main.c file. Have I missed something ? Is there
a mean to get round this ?

--
AILLET Pierre-Yves
16, Rue d'Armorique
44470 Thouar?-sur-Loire
Tel: +33674613172

On 12/28/05, Pierre-Yves AILLET <pierreyves.aillet@free.fr>
wrote:
> The libhid.c and libhid.h files in the Nut CVS are completely different
from the
> original libhid svn files. Then what would be the correct way to use libhid
from
> the libhid project for my non-standard UPS ? (inclusion in NUT or package
> dependancy)
Arnaud would probably be in a better position to answer this, but I
believe he will be on vacation for another week.
> Using libhid matcher to identify and claim the device interface avoid the
need
> of defining the port on the command line or in the config file, but
defining
> the port seems mandatory in the main.c file. Have I missed something ? Is
there
> a mean to get round this ?
The current workaround is to use a dummy port name like 'auto'. I
recall hearing about a change to newhidups (or maybe NUT core, I don't
remember) which lifted some of the lockfile restrictions when the port
name does not correspond to a physical port.

--
- Charles Lepple