On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Bjørn Mork wrote: > I'm wondering about the usefulness and correctness of some of the > warnings we print. The warnings are correct. How useful they are is another matter... > Some vendors obviously allocate fixed interface numbers for specific > functions and present configurations with large "holes" in the interface > numbers. Doing so violates the USB spec. Section 9.2.3 says: "Interfaces are numbered from zero to one less than the number of concurrent interfaces supported by the configuration." These devices probably could not pass the USB-CV tests. > This example was just posted on the NM list, and I have some > devices like this myself: > > usb 1-1.5: new high-speed USB device number 7 using ehci_hcd > usb 1-1.5: config 1 has an invalid interface number: 8 but max is 3 > usb 1-1.5: config 1 has no interface number 1 > usb 1-1.5: config 2 has an invalid interface number: 12 but max is 1 > usb 1-1.5: config 2 has an invalid interface number: 13 but max is 1 > usb 1-1.5: config 2 has an invalid interface number: 13 but max is 1 > usb 1-1.5: config 2 has no interface number 0 > usb 1-1.5: config 2 has no interface number 1 > > Is this useful to anyone? In theory it would be useful to somebody developing firmware for a USB device. If only such people would test their firmwares under Linux... > I expect it is just log noise to most users, > and some are probably confused and think there is something wrong here. > At least when they are having some unrelated problem with the device. > > Should we just drop those warnings? No opinion. Alan Stern -- 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
