Hi Bjørn, On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:55 PM Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > We have been using the fact that the QMI and DIAG functions > usually are the only ones with class/subclass/protocol being > ff/ff/ff on Quectel modems. This has allowed us to match the > QMI function without knowing the exact interface number, > which can vary depending on firmware configuration. > > The ability to silently reject the DIAG function, which is > usually handled by the option driver, is important for this > method to work. This is done based on the knowledge that it > has exactly 2 bulk endpoints. QMI function control interfaces > will have either 3 or 1 endpoint. This rule is universal so > the quirk condition can be removed. > > The fixed layouts known from the Gobi1k and Gobi2k modems > have been gradually replaced by more dynamic layouts, and > many vendors now use configurable layouts without changing > device IDs. Renaming the class/subclass/protocol matching > macro makes it more obvious that this is now not Quectel > specific anymore. > > Cc: Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Aleksander Morgado <aleksander@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx> > --- > What do you think, Kristian? There is no real need to limit this > rule to Quectel modems, is there? And from what I've understood, > it seems that most/all the upcoming X55 modems will have a > completely configurable layout. Which means that we should > avoid macthing on interface number if we can. And I believe we > can. I've not yet seen an example where ff/ff/ff would match > anything except QMI and DIAG. I am sorry for my late reply, your email had for some reason ended up in my spam filter. I agree with you reasoning and I think that making the Quectel-code generic is a good idea. I went through the modem I have, and could also not find any modems where the current Quectel-code would incorrectly match. FWIW: Acked-by: Kristian Evensen <kristian.evensen@xxxxxxxxx> BR, Kristian
