2013/1/30 Bjørn Mork <bjorn@xxxxxxx>: > Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> The output of lsusb for interface #1 is the following: >> >> Interface Descriptor: >> bLength 9 >> bDescriptorType 4 >> bInterfaceNumber 1 >> bAlternateSetting 0 >> bNumEndpoints 2 >> bInterfaceClass 255 Vendor Specific Class >> bInterfaceSubClass 66 >> bInterfaceProtocol 1 >> iInterface 0 >> >> It should be an adb device, so probably it is not needed to blacklist >> it. Should I resend a new patch with only interface #5 reserved? > > You could have used USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO() matching on all > ff/ff/ff to avoid blacklisting the adb interface, but IMHO the patch is > fine as it is. > Thanks, next time I'll follow that way. > This being an Android device raises another question though: Are these > interface numbers static? I assume you can e.g. disable adb? What > happens to the descriptors then? Does the device change pid, or are the > interfaces renumbered? > This is the device: http://www.telit.com/en/products/lte.php?p_id=421&p_ac=show&p=130 It is not an Android device, but an AT command based modem. I don't really know why there is an adb interface, but I am quite sure that you cannot disable it and the interface numbers should be static. However, if I find that this is not true, I will take care of sending a new set of patches for addressing the issue. Regards, Daniele -- 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
