From: Paulius Zaleckas <paulius.zaleckas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:33:59 +0300
> Jan Dumon wrote:
> > @@ -462,9 +462,16 @@ static const struct usb_device_id hso_ids[] = {
> > {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7701)},
> > {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7801)},
> > {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7901)},
> > - {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7361)},
> > - {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd057)},
>
> Please add comment in description why you are removing these IDs.
This isn't the first time they've been asked to do this.
--------------------
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hso: add new device id's
From: David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: F.Aben@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:33:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.1 on Emacs 22.1 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
From: "Filip Aben" <F.Aben@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 01:26:14 +0100
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: maandag 2 februari 2009 23:03
> > To: Filip Aben
> > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxx; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-usb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hso: add new device id's
> >
> > Why won't 0xaf0/0xd051 ever be used?
> >
> > You should explain such things in your commit message,
> > that way I don't have to ask.
>
> That ID was used in an internal engineering version of a device and
> will never see commercial light.
> Even if this ID will be 'recycled' in the future, which is very
> unlikely,
> I don't know what kind of device will be behind it. Therefore it's safer
> to remove it.
Great, please add that information to the commit message
and resend your patch.
Thanks.
--
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
