Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Jan Dumon wrote:
>
>> From: Jan Dumon <j.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Add Vendor/Product ID's for new devices.
>> Removed duplicate product ID 0x7361.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Dumon <j.dumon@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> index fe98aca..d47c508 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> @@ -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)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x8200)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x8201)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd035)},
>> {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd055)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd155)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd255)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd057)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd157)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd257)},
>> + {USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd357)},
>> {}
>> };
>> MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb, hso_ids);
>
> Is this list supposed to be kept in numerical order? The entries for
> 0xd057 and 0xd157 are in the wrong place.
We have an internal document with all the product ID's we use and I've followed that order. That way
it's a lot easier for me to compare the two and spot the missing ID's every time the list gets updated.
The devices with ID's 0x[0-2]55 are all from the same 'family' as are those with ID's 0x[0-3]57.
That is why they are out of numerical order...
Greets,
Jan.
--
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
