On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:03:23PM +0200, Reinhard Max wrote: > On Tue, 25 Jun 2013 at 19:14, Greg KH wrote: > > >On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 11:54:37AM +0200, Reinhard Max wrote: > > > >>So, how about starting to get rid of the baud rate list by > >>skipping it for HX chips only until someone with a type_0 or > >>type_1 devices can confirm that it works there as well? > > > >How about getting some of those devices and testing it? That's the > >best way to do it, right? After that, patches are always gladly > >accepted. > > Well, I do have a HX based device and I tested it and it does > support arbitrary baud rates. But as I have no idea where to get > type_0 or type_1 devices (if such are still available at all), I'd > leave that part up to those who have such devices and want to run > them at non-standard speeds. > > So, would you accept a patch that removes the constraint for HX only? Yes. > OTOH, why should a driver impose such a limit at all instead of > leaving it up to the hardware whether it supports non-standard baud > rates or (according to the comment in the driver) falls back to 9600 > Baud if an unsupported one is requested? Rounding a non-standard > baud rate such as 250kBd for DMX to the nearest standard value will > let the communication fail just as much as letting the hardware fall > back to 9600. Because that's the way the driver has successfully worked for the past 10+ years? Again, remember, this driver was created by reverse engineering the protocol, the fact that it works at all is amazing. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
