Thomas Schäfer <tschaefer@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I collected some additional information about this device. > > The windows-view: > http://www.cis.uni-muenchen.de/~thomas/pantech-p4200-usb.png BTW, do you happen to have a Windows *.inf file for that device? It does use the same class/subclass/protocol as one of the currently supported Pantech UML290 firmware versions, which makes me hope that we could do another vendor+class match here. What do you think, Dan? Would it be OK to replace the two UML290 entries with generic Pantech entries instead: USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x106c, USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC, 0xf0, 0xff), USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x106c, USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC, 0xf1, 0xff), And I am also wondering about the same for the three serial vendor specific interfaces as well. The descriptor layout of the P4200 seems to be identical to the first firmware version of the UML290: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg57253.html Looking at qcaux.c, we have these device entries which probably could be replaced with 3 USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO entries: { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(UTSTARCOM_VENDOR_ID, PANTECH_PRODUCT_UML190_VZW, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) }, { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(UTSTARCOM_VENDOR_ID, PANTECH_PRODUCT_UML190_VZW, 0xff, 0xfe, 0xff) }, { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(UTSTARCOM_VENDOR_ID, PANTECH_PRODUCT_UML290_VZW, 0xff, 0xfd, 0xff) }, /* NMEA */ { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(UTSTARCOM_VENDOR_ID, PANTECH_PRODUCT_UML290_VZW, 0xff, 0xfe, 0xff) }, /* WMC */ { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(UTSTARCOM_VENDOR_ID, PANTECH_PRODUCT_UML290_VZW, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff) }, /* DIAG */ Consistent subclass usage over 3 different devices look good to me... Bjørn -- 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
