On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:03, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:52:16AM +1000, Brad Hards wrote: > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:35, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > Really, the only safe thing to do is assume media-change on > > > removal/insertion, given that devices (as a generalized term) are > > > inconsistant in their ability/willingness to indicate media change. > > > > Could you "quirk" this, so that the normal assumption is that unannounced > > media change did occur, and then make happier assumptions for known > > good devices? > > We could 'quirk' it, but it would quirk the other way -- most devices > properly report media change. Otherwise we'd be listing almost all devices > in the quirk table. Maybe linear search isn't the best option for unusual devices :)
> The problem is that this is a pretty serious problem.... if it doesn't > work, all sorts of things fail. We kinda have to assume the worst, given > the distribution of devices in existance. This was why I went with the "assume that the device does mad/bad things" and then "when someone claims that their device works, quirk it to good". Brad -- http://conf.linux.org.au. 22-25Jan2003. Perth, Australia. Birds in Black. ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
