Return-path: Received: from qvfw1.qvalent.com ([202.7.65.65]:60255 "HELO mail.qvalent.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933881AbYBOGzb (ORCPT ); Fri, 15 Feb 2008 01:55:31 -0500 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, rt2400-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Message-Id: (sfid-20080215_065536_696917_696701F2) From: Mark Wallis To: Pavel Roskin In-Reply-To: <1203056096.30732.63.camel@dv> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v919.2) Subject: Re: Both rt2500usb and rt73 claim USB device 148f:2573 Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:24:08 +1100 References: <1203056096.30732.63.camel@dv> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Pavel, On 15/02/2008, at 5:14 PM, Pavel Roskin wrote: > My Level One WNC-0301USB v3 has USB ID 148f:2573, which is listed as > compatible both in rt2500usb.c and rt73usb.c. It only works with rt73 > but not with rt2500usb. > > Is this duplication intentional? I'm afraid so. That particular manufacturer I believe changed the chipset they were using without updating their USD device ID's. We have seen this a few times now and the only solution we have been able to provide is to give the users instructions for blacklisting the incorrect driver. I believe this has been discussed on this list previously. Regards, Mark Wallis rt2x00 Driver Team mwallis@serialmonkey.com http://www.markwallis.id.au