Hi Eric, On Sunday 15 July 2012 20:24:26 Eric Ding wrote: > On 07/15/2012 08:21 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Thursday 12 July 2012 16:05:47 Eric Ding wrote: > >> 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. > > > > I'm fine with both solutions. Handling the quirks in the USB core has my > > preference, as it would ensure that no race condition will cause any issue > > at probe time. > > So who actually writes an appropriate patch? Like I said before, I'm no > kernel hacker, so I think it's best if someone more familiar with this > code than I am actually moves forward with the code mods... :-) I can write the patch, but I'd like to first get a confirmation from USB core developers (Alan ?) that the approach will be accepted. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- 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
