On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 03:09:11PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 02:31:42PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:30:57PM +0200, Phil Dibowitz wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 07, 2009 at 05:13:59PM +0200, Peter Magdina wrote: > > > > However, one conclusion is here. > > > > If you want to put it only into userspace (without even patching option > > > > driver to support this device), then udev scripts must handle if option > > > > driver is already loaded or not and eventually load it and write new VID/PID > > > > to "new_id". > > > > > > > > If this whole handling is ok according to you, then I don't mind. > > > > But as far as there exists other VIDs/PIDs in option driver, it would be > > > > nice to put also this one there and than the only thing which will have to > > > > be done by udev script is to eject the device. > > > > > > I think it makes sense that usb-serial should have the VID/PID in it for the > > > modem. > > > > I agree, I'll queue up the patch that adds them. > > Are there any potential conflicts between a kernel that has this VID/PID in > usb-serial, and a udev which attempts to add them at run-time? No, it will just be duplicates in the device id table, so it should be fine. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
