Hi,
I'm trying to add support for my UMTS USB stick (Huawei 3765) to udev.
Until yesterday I was pretty sure that I need to patch modem-modeswitch
+ adding some udev rules.
However today I found changeset 8a993fab2f218234f06743bcc127dda61a45711b
by Dan Williams committed on Nov 23 which basically says that it is
completely wrong to use 'option-zerocd' for non-option devices.
Dan send a reasoning before doing his revert:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg03143.html
More specifically he wrote:
"All further modem eject stuff should really handled by usb_modeswitch,
not by modem-modeswitch. I'll follow up with a patch for the rules file
saying that only Option devices should be added, and that usb_modeswitch
is really the right place for this stuff."
I'm puzzled by that...
1. Does that mean that you (udev upstream) declare modem-modeswitch a
dead end and everybody should look at usb_modeswitch?
2. If a supposedly wrong string works on real hardware for real users -
how can it be wrong? You might want to argue that a parameter
'option-zerocd' is wrong for non-option devices and we should use a
different name for the parameter...
3. If usb_modeswitch is the way to go, are you comfortable adding this
as a dependency (by including rules which call usb_modeswitch)?
fs
PS: cc'ing Dan as he's not on the list afaik, cc'ing Martin because he
commited the original commit and is in charge for the original Ubuntu bug.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-hotplug" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
