On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:03:27PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 16:06:01 -0800 > Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:15:54PM +0300, Dave Milter wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I have device, that implement Communication Device Class. > > > And want to connect it to my machine. On Windows give system proper > > > inf file with > > > vendor and product id, I was abble to communicate with device using > > > virtual com port and hyperterminal. > > > > > > Now I want to use it on linux. But the problem is that there are > > > already several devices connected to my machine, > > > that use usbserial indirectly. > > > > > > If I remove pl2303,ftdi_sio,usbserial, then run > > > insmod usbserial vendor= product= > > > > Ick, never do that. You NEVER want to add a new device id to the > > usbserial core, if you ever see anyone suggest you do that, it is flat > > out wrong. > > > Sorry for asking a maybe FAQ: > Why you should *never* add a new device id to the usbserial core? Because you want to use your device with proper flow control and actual speed. > Of course, if there is a special driver for the device, use that. Exactly. > But if all you want and need to do is to use a single pair of bulk > endpoints, then why not use the generic driver? > What is the alternative? It is easier than using libusb and provides > a common interface. You can just create a simple driver that uses the generic interface internally, like many other drivers do. When using the module parameters you can not ever have more than one device in the system that uses the generic driver in this manner, and you don't provide a "plug it in and it just works" type solution for all Linux users. Hope this helps, 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
