Common sense says:
(0x8516, 0x2070) is RT2070
(0x8516, 0x2770) is RT2770
(0x8516, 0x2870) is RT2870
[...]
but Allwin doesn't sell USB dongles nor PCI boards, only voip-routers
http://www.allwin.com.tw/eng/modules/tinyd0/content/index.php?id=1
Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c | 8 --------
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
index df7666f..41de405 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
@@ -1019,14 +1019,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id rt2800usb_device_table[] = {
* Unclear what kind of devices these are (they aren't supported by the
* vendor driver).
*/
- /* Allwin */
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2070), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2770), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2870), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3070), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3071), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3072), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
- { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3572), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
/* Amigo */
{ USB_DEVICE(0x0e0b, 0x9031), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
{ USB_DEVICE(0x0e0b, 0x9041), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
--
1.6.6.1
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Common sense says:
> (0x8516, 0x2070) is RT2070
> (0x8516, 0x2770) is RT2770
> (0x8516, 0x2870) is RT2870
> [...]
>
> but Allwin doesn't sell USB dongles nor PCI boards, only voip-routers
> http://www.allwin.com.tw/eng/modules/tinyd0/content/index.php?id=1
But how about the case where the company name is wrong and the ID's are valid?
That means we only should update the comment, rather then deleting the ID's.
> Signed-off-by: Xose Vazquez Perez <[email protected]>
> ---
> ?drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c | ? ?8 --------
> ?1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
> index df7666f..41de405 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2800usb.c
> @@ -1019,14 +1019,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id rt2800usb_device_table[] = {
> ? ? ? ? * Unclear what kind of devices these are (they aren't supported by the
> ? ? ? ? * vendor driver).
> ? ? ? ? */
> - ? ? ? /* Allwin */
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2070), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2770), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x2870), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3070), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3071), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3072), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> - ? ? ? { USB_DEVICE(0x8516, 0x3572), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> ? ? ? ?/* Amigo */
> ? ? ? ?{ USB_DEVICE(0x0e0b, 0x9031), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> ? ? ? ?{ USB_DEVICE(0x0e0b, 0x9041), USB_DEVICE_DATA(&rt2800usb_ops) },
> --
> 1.6.6.1
>
>
On 04/16/10 15:43, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:17:07PM +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Common sense says:
>>> (0x8516, 0x2070) is RT2070
>>> (0x8516, 0x2770) is RT2770
>>> (0x8516, 0x2870) is RT2870
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> but Allwin doesn't sell USB dongles nor PCI boards, only voip-routers
>>> http://www.allwin.com.tw/eng/modules/tinyd0/content/index.php?id=1
>>
>> But how about the case where the company name is wrong and the ID's are valid?
>> That means we only should update the comment, rather then deleting the ID's.
>
> Or the case where someone ports Linux to those voip routers...
And finally, these devices are still mentioned in the Ralink windows driver,
so we must assume that they actually exist.
However, the common sense approach may be appropriate, so moving these devices
to the correct section does seem okay.
---
Gertjan.
On 04/16/2010 11:19 PM, Gertjan van Wingerde wrote:
> And finally, these devices are still mentioned in the Ralink windows driver,
> so we must assume that they actually exist.
some devices in the windows drivers are experimental(never produced/shipped).
> However, the common sense approach may be appropriate, so moving these devices
> to the correct section does seem okay.
done.
--
?All? muevan feroz guerra, ciegos reyes por un palmo m?s de tierra;
que yo aqu? tengo por m?o cuanto abarca el mar brav?o, a quien nadie
impuso leyes. Y no hay playa, sea cualquiera, ni bandera de esplendor,
que no sienta mi derecho y d? pecho a mi valor.?
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 01:17:07PM +0200, Ivo Van Doorn wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Common sense says:
> > (0x8516, 0x2070) is RT2070
> > (0x8516, 0x2770) is RT2770
> > (0x8516, 0x2870) is RT2870
> > [...]
> >
> > but Allwin doesn't sell USB dongles nor PCI boards, only voip-routers
> > http://www.allwin.com.tw/eng/modules/tinyd0/content/index.php?id=1
>
> But how about the case where the company name is wrong and the ID's are valid?
> That means we only should update the comment, rather then deleting the ID's.
Or the case where someone ports Linux to those voip routers...
John
--
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you
[email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.