Hi Stan,
2011/11/2 Charles Lepple <[email protected]>
> On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
>
> - { 0x0001, 0x0000, &krauler_subdriver }, /*
>> Krauler UP-M500VA */
>> - { 0xffff, 0x0000, &krauler_subdriver }, /*
>> Ablerex 625L USB */
>> + { USB_DEVICE(0x0001, 0x0000), &krauler_subdriver }, /*
>> Krauler UP-M500VA */
>> + { USB_DEVICE(0xffff, 0x0000), &krauler_subdriver }, /*
>> Ablerex 625L USB */
>>
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> IMHO, we only want NUT to claim these invalid USB IDs if the user
> specifically requests it, rather than including it in the base NUT
> distribution (think Gstreamer's "ugly" vs "good" plugins.)
>
> Arnaud, do you think it is worthwhile to split this off into a second
> udev/hotplug configuration file? (I ask since I think either you or someone
> else at Eaton wrote the script that generates the .rules.in file).
>
well, sitting down to think for a minute, my original intention was just to
not conflict with other "system" devices (I had in mind "Linux Foundation
root hub").
Digging back memories and the net, the only evidence I can find of possible
conflict is ffff:0000 with some HID mice. Nothing for 0001:0000.
So while it's true that these USB IDs are not conforming to USB standard, I
don't actually see any need to keep these out of NUT udev rules anymore.
Apart if someone prove me I'm wrong, I'm intending to revert r2994 and
r2993 within a few days.
Thanks for pointing my attention to this Stan!
cheers,
Arnaud
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
