Am 12.07.2012 10:05, schrieb Eric Ding: > On 07/09/2012 10:17 PM, Alan Stern wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012, Jonathan Nieder wrote: >> >>> Eric Ding wrote: >>> >>>> So it looks like you'd have to both look for USB_CLASS_VIDEO and check >>>> uvc_ids[] too... which becomes somewhat hairy, since I assume you don't >>>> realy want usb_detect_quirks() to reference UVC-specific structs... >>>> which brings us back to the original laundry list approach of naming >>>> several affected webcams explicitly, no? >>> >>> Why wouldn't I want usb_detect_quirks() to reference UVC-specific >>> structs? >> >> Well, it's a layering violation. Not to mention a duplication of code. >> >> But if the alternative is to list every buggy webcam made by Logitech, >> it might be worthwhile. > > So... now what, then? Who decides which is the better of two evils: > obvious code duplication vs. layering violation? FWIW, it does seem > like the number of Logitech webcams which aren't USB_CLASS_VIDEO is > finite, including only older webcams, so perhaps listing "every buggy > webcam made by Logitech" in two places (one in UVC code, one in USB core > code) is not an invitation for long-term code maintenance nightmares. > > Eric > according to device list here: http://www.ideasonboard.org/uvc/ we can safely use range of usb ids plus combine information from here: https://usb-ids.gowdy.us/read/UD/046d it looks like we can use range from 0800 - 9ff, but it will include some usb microphones. I do not know if they are affected too. -- Regards, Oleksij -- 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
