On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 12:56:19PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > > How about 2 entries. One for devices 0x1000 to 0x9009 and one for > > > > 0x9010 to 0x9999 ? Care to make up a patch for this? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > > > greg k-h > > > > > > > > > > Certainly. I assumed you meant 0x900a-0x9999 for the newer cameras. > > > > No, he meant 0x9010. The values are binary-coded decimal. But 0x900a > > won't hurt, since it's only used in a range comparison. > > > > Alan Stern > > Well, we all know what happens when you assume... :) > > I saw letters in other entries, but now I see I didn't see letters in > those two positions. My bad.
Care to redo the patch? thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
