Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
---
John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
@@ -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) },
--
1.5.3.8
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 12:22:30PM +0000, Luis Correia wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Michael Buesch <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:36:28 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
> > > It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
> > >
> > > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > @@ -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.
>
> Ok, the user has to wait untill 2.6.26 then.
Oh, it seems that -stable does actually accept such patches:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.23.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=2cf220bb5b30a922aebdd5841a7975e02a70ce59
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.23.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=955ab48db7fb9e3d74dc770cca9aa6b194e53025
I wasn't aware of this, because we always had the rule of ID additions
being features, in the wireless team.
So well. I think John should probably make an official decision. :)
I would suggest the following: Unless there's another driver in
the tree that (partially) supports the device being added, adding the ID
can not cause a regression. So it's OK to add it, even in a stable cycle.
--
Greetings Michael.
On Sunday 10 February 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
> > It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > @@ -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.
Ok, the user has to wait untill 2.6.26 then.
Ivo
On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
> ---
> John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
> It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
>
> drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> @@ -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.
--
Greetings Michael.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Michael Buesch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
> > It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
> >
> > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > @@ -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?
Luis Correia
rt2x00 project admin
>
> --
> Greetings Michael.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
On Sunday 10 February 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:36:28 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > On Sunday 10 February 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > On Sunday 10 February 2008 11:21:57 Ivo van Doorn wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ivo van Doorn <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > John, please send this patch to the 2.6.24/2.6.25 stable trees.
> > > > It is already present in the wireless-2.6 tree queued for 2.6.26.
> > > >
> > > > drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > > index cba7f57..c4a6ab4 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rt2x00/rt2500usb.c
> > > > @@ -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.
> >
> > Ok, the user has to wait untill 2.6.26 then.
>
> Oh, it seems that -stable does actually accept such patches:
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.23.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=2cf220bb5b30a922aebdd5841a7975e02a70ce59
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.23.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=955ab48db7fb9e3d74dc770cca9aa6b194e53025
>
> I wasn't aware of this, because we always had the rule of ID additions
> being features, in the wireless team.
> So well. I think John should probably make an official decision. :)
>
> I would suggest the following: Unless there's another driver in
> the tree that (partially) supports the device being added, adding the ID
> can not cause a regression. So it's OK to add it, even in a stable cycle.
The ID was previously unknown, and I have 2 users who reported success when the
ID was added to rt2500usb and the legacy rt2570 driver.
Ivo