On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 2:21 PM, Christer Weinigel <chris...@weinigel.se> wrote: >> Actually, that sounds like a very good compromise. I remember my own >> struggles 3-4 years ago when I had to get a device working properly on >> ChromeOS and Ubuntu, where the firmware had to handle that the first ~16 >> seconds it would *sometimes* get sent strange AT commands (the probing) >> all while the system thought it could already start speaking with the >> device over e.g. chrome.serial. Eventually you (modemmanager) were kind >> enough to get our VID/PID listed and ChromeOS was quick to pick it up >> (~5-6 months to get in stable) and ubuntu so kind to upgrade to the >> version of modemmanager including our blacklisting approx 2.5 years >> later (sigh) ;) > > Weird question: should modem manager really autoprobe _every_ serial > device nowdays? 99% of the devices I connect to my laptop are not > modems. They are serial ports on development platforms, RS485 > interfaces, Arduinos with a FTDI, CP210x or CH341 USB-UART bridge, and > so on. Modems with a physical serial port are almost nonexistent today. > For me it's a pain in the back to have to update the blacklist of > things modem manger shouldn't touch. > > Wouldn't it be better to whitelist known ḿodems and have modem manager > ignore everything else? Devices which are so new that modem manager > don't know about them can be configured manually. > > At least to me that seems like a much more sane default.
Not a weird question, we've already discussed this same thing several times. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85007 -- Aleksander https://aleksander.es _______________________________________________ ModemManager-devel mailing list ModemManager-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/modemmanager-devel