Em 24-10-2010 04:34, Anssi Hannula escreveu:
> On Friday 22 October 2010 10:55:47 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> There are lots of ZTE USB id's currently not covered by usb/serial. Adds them,
>> to allow those devices to work properly on Linux.
>>
>> While here, put the USB ID's for 0x2002/0x2003 at the sorted order.
>>
>> This patch is based on zte.c file found on MF645.
>>
>> PS.: The ZTE driver is commenting the USB ID for 0x0053. It also adds, commented,
>> an USB ID for 0x0026.
>
> So you are saying it comments 0x0053 and adds commented 0x0026...
>
>> Not sure why, but I think that 0053 is used by their devices in storage mode only.
>> So, I opted to keep the comment on this patch.
>>
> [...]
>> { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0025, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) },
>> - { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0026, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) },
>> + /* { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0026, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) }, */
>> { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0028, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) },
> [...]
>> { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0052, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) },
>> + /* { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0053, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) }, */
>> { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(ZTE_VENDOR_ID, 0x0054, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) },
> [...]
>
> However, here 0x0026 is replaced with a comment and 0x0053 is added as
> commented.
>
> Is this simply an error in the patch description or did something go wrong?
Yeah, the patch description is not 100%... it should be, instead:
The ZTE driver is commenting the USB ID for 0x0026. It also adds, commented,
an USB ID for 0x0053.
The patch is correct, though.
Cheers,
Mauro
--
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
