Hi Stan, 2011/11/12 Arnaud Quette <[email protected]>
> 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! > Done in r3321. cheers, Arnaud
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
