On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:47:59AM +0100, Daniele Palmas wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> Il giorno mer 20 feb 2019 alle ore 10:39 Johan Hovold
> <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 10:13:09AM +0100, Daniele Palmas wrote:
> > > This patch adds Telit ME910 family ECM composition 0x1102.
> > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/serial/option.c b/drivers/usb/serial/option.c
> > > index aef15497ff31..0cf943281065 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/usb/serial/option.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/usb/serial/option.c
> > > @@ -1148,6 +1148,8 @@ static const struct usb_device_id option_ids[] = {
> > > .driver_info = NCTRL(0) | RSVD(1) | RSVD(3) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, TELIT_PRODUCT_ME910_DUAL_MODEM),
> > > .driver_info = NCTRL(0) | RSVD(3) },
> > > + { USB_DEVICE(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, 0x1102), /* TELIT ME910 (ECM) */
> > > + .driver_info = NCTRL(0) | RSVD(3) | RSVD(4) },
> >
> > I realise this probably just reuses a pattern from the earlier Telit
> > entries, but why not match on the interface class instead of
> > blacklisting interface 3 and 4?
> >
>
> Yes, it was just for keeping the entry coherent with previous ME910
> related ones.
>
> I can send a V2 fixing this.
Please do, thanks. Let's try to keep the explicit blacklisting to a
minimum.
Johan
