[BRLTTY] The Baum driver should *NOT* claim a TSI display!

[Mario Lang]

Dave Mielke <dave at mielke.cc> writes:

> [quoted lines by Jason White on 2007/08/27 at 10:15 +1000]
>
>>Am I correct, however, in assuming that the problem only arises with a serial
>>interface? 
>
> And, I suspect, with Bluetooth.

No, the powerbraille has no bluetooth interface.

>>Under USB, the vendor/product ids should be sufficient to distinguish a Baum
>>display from a PowerBraille,
>
> Yes.
>
>>assuming that later PowerBraille displays have USB interfaces.
>
> I don't think PowerBrailles are being developed any more. Our thinking,
> however, should always allow for such a possibility.
>
>>If this is right, I would rather the restriction be limited to circumstances
>>in which a serial interface is used. If a Baum display is detected via USB
>>vendor/product ids, the driver should continue to probe for all supported
>>protocols.
>
> I like this approach. If we're all in agreement then I'll make the change,
> which would be that the Baum driver would continue to check for emulation modes
> if USB is bieng used but would only check for the native Baum protocol if
> serial or Bluetooth is being used.

The Bluetooth part in the above sentence looks like an error.
Besides, I am not a Baum Vario user, but if I were and would use my
serial interface, I'd not like to loose the ability to use
compatibility modes.  What about coupling the above approach with
a boolean braille driver parameter that would still allow a user
to enable probing of compatibility modes even if a serial interface is used?

-- 
CYa,
  Mario | Debian Developer <URL:http://debian.org/>
  .''`. | Get my public key via finger mlang at db.debian.org
 : :' : | 1024D/7FC1A0854909BCCDBE6C102DDFFC022A6B113E44
 `. `'
   `-      <URL:http://delysid.org/>  <URL:http://www.staff.tugraz.at/mlang/>