On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Muhammad, Linus forwarded me your email about this topic, hope that's > ok. See the bottom for my comments, the entire email is quoted to get > Kevin up to speed on this. > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Muhammad Minhazul Haque" <mdminhazulhaque@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Nov 5, 2012 7:00 PM >> Subject: About Beceem WiMAX Module >> To: <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Hello Sir, >> >> I have an issue with a module named "bcm_wimax". This is a staging >> module located at linux/drivers/staging/bcm. The problem is that, the >> supported devices listed in the module are not all valid or there are >> more to be added. >> >> "modinfo bcm_wimax" returns the supported product and vendor ids. >> >> ... >> alias: usb:v19D2p0007d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v0489pE017d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v19D2p0132d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v198FpBCCDd*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v198Fp0220d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v198Fp0210d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> alias: usb:v198Fp0300d*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* >> ... >> >> Here the product id 198f:bccd is obsolete cause it is a storage device >> to load device driver which uses module "usb_storage". There are more >> devices with id 19d2:0172, 19d2:0173 and so on. They all have >> "beceXXXX" chip inside and the module "bcm_wimax" works fine with >> them. The only problem is, custom modules are to be build before using >> them and remove the original one. It would be great if more device id >> is added and remove which are rarely used. I often get emails from If device id "0x132" is rarely used, then I think we still have to support it. >> people using Virgin Mobile U760, Franklin Wireless u600 etc which have >> another device ids. >> >> I did a commit on your repo at >> https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/drivers/staging/bcm/ >> InterfaceInit.h. >> >> At line 14, the following text >> >> #define BCM_USB_PRODUCT_ID_226 0x0132 /* not sure if this is valid */ >> >> was changed to >> >> #define BCM_USB_PRODUCT_ID_226 0x0173 /* ZTE AX326 */ >> >> Shouldn't this be approved? >> >> I have devices with id 19d2:0172, 19d2:0173, 198f:015e also. So if any >> help will be provided if anyone is interested. Feel free to ask any >> question regarding this device/module/api. > > Kevin, you added the "not sure if this is valid" comment here, should it > be removed? And we should just add the 0x173 device id also, right? I submitted a patch a while back (Sep 11, 2012) to add device id of "0x172" to the staging-next branch. I did not remove device id of "0x132" because I was not certain if it was valid. If Muhammad can confirm that this device id is not needed, then we should remove it. However, if it is used, but only rarely; I think we still need to support it. Muhammad, is that device id totally invalid, or is it valid but rarely used? > Muhammad, can you send me a patch for this in the format described in > Documentation/SubmittingPatches so that I can add the new device id to > the driver? And if you have people reporting other device ids, please > also send on those changes as well. > Thanks, Kevin _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
