Alan Stern wrote:
Yes. I removed the comment not because it was wrong, but because it was
redundant. You can tell just by reading the entry that the subclass
override must be necessary -- if it weren't needed it would say
US_SC_DEVICE instead. (How can you tell? Because the Protocol entry has
been updated in exactly that way. Since the Subclass entry wasn't updated
it must be necessary.)
That was the reason I invented US_SC_DEVICE and US_PR_DEVICE in the first
place.
It's been argued to me that there are bad cases where the same
productId, VendorId, and bdcDevice number have been given to two
different, but very similar devices that act differently.
If so, those comments are useful... but again, as I said, not a
religious war for me. Alan, I also respect your opinion as you've been
doing this a lot longer than I have...
--
Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freeware and Technical Pages Insanity Palace of Metallica
http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
