Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:03:46 +0200
From: iSteve <isteve@rulez.cz>
To: Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: broken modules.alias entries for some USB devices
Message-ID: <20060921210346.1a59666b@silver>
In-Reply-To: <20060921223035.c5fda02d.vsu@altlinux.ru>
References: <20060920185301.21dcf9bc@silver>
	<20060920102248.ebb55960.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
	<20060921165424.139138e5@silver>
	<20060921223035.c5fda02d.vsu@altlinux.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1265
Lines: 32

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 22:30:35 +0400
Sergey Vlasov <vsu@altlinux.ru> wrote:
> The problem is that the bcdDevice field is supposed to be BCD - i.e.,
> its hex representation should contain only decimal digits 0..9.
> Therefore a proper USB device cannot have bcdDevice == 0x030a.
> Apparently some ibmcam devices violate this and use the bcdDevice field
> as if it was binary.
> 
> The code in scripts/mod/file2alias.c assumes that the bcdDevice_lo and
> bcdDevice_hi field contain proper BCD data.  Seems that, thanks to buggy
> hardware, this assumption is incorrect, and the code needs to support
> any hex numbers there.

So the 'correct' alias for this device should be eg.:
usb:v0545p800Dd030Adc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip*
right?

Given this new info... what if _lo is 0x030a and _hi is 0x030f? How would the
alias look like? Or worse, what if _lo is 0x030a and _hi is 0x040a?

Would these be correct?
usb:v0545p800Dd030[A-F]dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip*
usb:v0545p800Dd0[30A-40A]dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip*

Thanks in advance.
-- 
 -- iSteve
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/