On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Matthias Reichl wrote: > I ran into the same issue with a Panasonic DMC-FX12. > > Unfortunately, the Panasonic cameras seem to report identical > values for vendor (0x04da), product (0x2372) and revision (0.10). > > Here's the relevant part of /proc/usb/devices with a DMC-FX12 > > T: Bus=08 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 4 Spd=12 MxCh= 0 > D: Ver= 1.10 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1 > P: Vendor=04da ProdID=2372 Rev= 0.10 > S: Manufacturer=Panasonic > S: Product=DMC-FX12 > C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=c0 MxPwr= 2mA > I:* If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=08(stor.) Sub=06 Prot=50 Driver=usb-storage > E: Ad=01(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl=0ms > E: Ad=82(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 64 Ivl=0ms > > The old reports for DMC-LC5 and DMC-LC20 all have the same > vendor/product/revision numbers: > https://lists.one-eyed-alien.net/pipermail/usb-storage/2004-June/000386.html > https://lists.one-eyed-alien.net/pipermail/usb-storage/2004-August/000691.html > > So, with the new code for automatically fixing the last sector bugs, > wouldn't it be better to just remove the US_FL_FIX_CAPACITY from > (most?) of the unusual_devs entries? What new code? Are you talking about the patch that automatically sets the CAPACITY_HEURISTICS flag for devices from Nikon, Nokia, and Motorola? I don't see why that would affect a Panasonic camera. Or maybe you're referring to the last-sector-hacks patch? That doesn't fix last-sector bugs either. It merely prevents them from putting the system into an endless read loop. Alan Stern -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
