Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Vincent Mailhol <mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-can@vger.kernel.org, Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>,
        Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Oliver Neukum <oneukum@suse.com>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        Arunachalam Santhanam <arunachalam.santhanam@in.bosch.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] USB: cdc-acm: blacklist ETAS ES58X device
Date:   Tue, 29 Sep 2020 11:15:02 +0900
Message-Id: <20200929021502.18163-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr>
In-Reply-To: <20200927055226.GA701624@kroah.com>
References: <20200926175810.278529-1-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <20200926175810.278529-7-mailhol.vincent@wanadoo.fr> <20200927054520.GB699448@kroah.com> <20200927055226.GA701624@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

> > Did you mean to send this twice?

Sorry for that, I screwed things up a first time when sending the
patches: only included the CAN mailing list
(linux-can@vger.kernel.org) but ommitted linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
in the cover letter. As a result, it broke the chain reply on lkml.org
so I preferred to resend it.

> > And where are the 5 other patches in this series?

I used the --cc-cmd="scripts/get_maintainer.pl -i" option in git
send-email to send the series. The five other patches are not related
to USB core but to CAN core, so you were not included in CC by the
script. Now, I understand this is confusing, I will take care to CC
you on the full series when sending V2. One more time, sorry for that.

For your information, the full patch series is available here:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/9/26/319

> > And finally, it's a good idea to include the output of 'lsusb -v' for
> > devices that need quirks so we can figure things out later on, can you
> > fix up your changelog to include that information?

Noted, will be included in v2 of the patch series.

> Also, why is the device saying it is a cdc-acm compliant device when it
> is not?  Why lie to the operating system like that?

This is a leftover debug feature used during development. Future
firmware version will have it remove but users with older revision
will still face this issue which can be confusing.

I will also amend the changelog to better reflect above reason.