On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:22:30PM +0000, Luis Correia wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Michael Buesch <mb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > @@ -1871,11 +1871,11 @@ static struct usb_device_id rt2500usb_device_table[] = {
> > > /* Hercules */
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x06f8, 0xe000), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > /* Melco */
> > > + { USB_DEVICE(0x0411, 0x005e), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0411, 0x0066), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0411, 0x0067), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0411, 0x008b), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0411, 0x0097), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > -
> > > /* MSI */
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0db0, 0x6861), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> > > { USB_DEVICE(0x0db0, 0x6865), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2500usb_ops) },
> >
> > I'm unsure on how this is an actual _fix_ that we need in a stable kernel.
> > We always handled adding IDs as features.
>
> Please forgive me for stepping in this apparently already closed discussion.
>
> Why is supporting a new USB ID considered a feature, when the users
> are probably ok with it (it works) and no changes are added to the
> code?
FWIW, I have often sent USB/PCI ID additions as "fixes" to the current
release. There may have been some confusion over that in the past --
if I created that confusion, I apologize. :-)
Thanks,
John
--
John W. Linville
linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
