On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 10:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:29:27AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2009 19:03:00 schrieb Matthew Dharm: > > > > This would break existing systems and thus introduce a regression. > > > > We'd need to go through a feature removal process. For the time being > > > > I see no alternative to Seife's patch, as we cannot introduce ejection > > > > code to another wireless driver and need to support these devices. > > > > > > The right answer here is neither to move the eject code nor to introduce > > > more of it. New devices should be supported via userspace. > > > > Usually I would agree, but in this case the vendor reused IDs. > > The legacy kernel space switcher and user space would race. > > So, let me see if I understand this... we have two devices that use the > same IDs, and get mode-switched the same way, but need different > post-switch drivers? > > If this is the case, then the only reasonable answer to is to push the > modeswitch code for both into udev and out of the kernel. It will take you mean usb_modeswitch, not udev actually. > longer to support the new device that way (since we need to wait until udev > is updated and then remove kernel support), but that's what a vendor gets > for re-using IDs. > > Matt > -- 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
