Bernd Petrovitsch writes:
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 01:37 +1030, David Newall wrote:
[...]
disadvantage Linux with respect to many classes of devices, for example
GSM transceivers when used in those parts of the world^ where regulatory
requirements prohibit modification of power or frequency
Pekka Enberg writes:
I think you're missing my point: as long as the license stays the way
it is now, you can never distribute proprietary code unless you've
consulted a lawyer and even then you run the risk of being sued for
infringement if the copyright holder thinks what you have is derived
Marcel Holtmann writes:
if a new drivers is originally written for Linux, then you are breaking
the GPL.
Completely wrong. However if the driver is distributed as built-in, then it
would need to be licensed under GPL. This means that a driver can be
written and distributed as a module
On Die, 2008-02-05 at 21:48 +1030, David Newall wrote:
Bernd Petrovitsch writes:
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 01:37 +1030, David Newall wrote:
[...]
disadvantage Linux with respect to many classes of devices, for example
GSM transceivers when used in those parts of the world^ where regulatory
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
However the interface to usb_stor_access_xfer_buf() will have to change
slightly. Right now if it sees that *sgptr is NULL, it assumes this
means it should start at the beginning of the s-g buffer. But with
Boaz's change, *sgptr == NULL means the
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
drivers/usb/storage/sddr55.c: In function 'sddr55_transport':
drivers/usb/storage/sddr55.c:526: warning: 'deviceID' may be used
uninitialized in this function
drivers/usb/storage/sddr55.c:525: warning:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:43:46AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Fabio Venturi wrote:
I've tried to patch quirks.c with:
+ { USB_DEVICE(0x10d6, 0x2200), .driver_info =
USB_QUIRK_STRING_FETCH_255},
and also with
+ { USB_DEVICE(0xd610, 0x2200), .driver_info =
On Tue, Feb 05 2008 at 17:42 +0200, Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
However the interface to usb_stor_access_xfer_buf() will have to change
slightly. Right now if it sees that *sgptr is NULL, it assumes this
means it should start at the beginning
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 03:05:58PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Matthew Dharm wrote:
I think the correct approach is to modify those routines so that they
will never overrun the s-g buffer (like Boaz has done), and _document_
this behavior. Then the callers can feel free
Hi Dave,
I've been looking at ehci_shutdown() in ehci-hcd.c with increasing puzzlement.
Why shut off port power before attempting to stop the host controller from
processing the periodic and async schedules? It seems like you want to allow
the host to complete whatever transactions it was in
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Fabio Venturi wrote:
Opppsss!!!
Too many outputs to deal with :(
I'm not sure that was right,
this is right one for sure:
+ { USB_DEVICE(0x10d6, 0x2200), .driver_info = USB_QUIRK_STRING_FETCH_255},
This patch should not have produced the output you posted. Are you
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 11:17:46 -0800 (PST), Siddharth Choudhuri [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
- Linux 2.6.19 on ARM
The problem is, I see the following in /tmp/log (no data words):
c04087dc 57025 C Bo:002:02 0 31
c000ec14 57209 S Bo:002:02 -115 512 D
Hi Chris,
If the developers say that this symbol can only be used in GPL code (and
with EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL it is quite clear) then you have to obey to that
license or don't use this symbol at all.
If you use that symbol inside non-GPL (meaning you link at runtime) then
you are in
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
The reason to try powering off the ports is that, well, the system is
shutting down. Why waste (potentially battery) power? Whatever runs
next can turn it back on if it wants. And if PPS isn't set, then trying
to clear the per-port power-enabled
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
The problem stems from the fact that usbmon's hooks may not have
access to the virtual address of the data. On cache-coherent
architectures, such as x86, usbmon works around it by remapping
data temporarily. I think the problem should be transparent if
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 14:05:06 -0800, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Looks like you deadlocked in ub_request_fn(). I assume that you were using
ub.c in 2.6.23 and that it worked OK? If so, we broke it, possibly via
changes to the core block layer.
I think ub.c is basically abandoned
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 17:02:58 -0500 (EST), Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In such cases the page number is stored in a scatter-gather entry.
Should we modify the core to keep a copy of the page number in the URB,
for use by mon_dmapeek()?
If you ask me, I'd say that rules of what is
Greg KH writes:
No, it really is not a gray area at all, especially when you are writing
a new driver for Linux. Go talk to a lawyer if you want the details.
If we're still talking about whether a kernel module is required to be
released under GPL, then yes, this is not a gray area. This is
Of course, because in many parts of the world, a device who's manufacturer
fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it from being used outside
regulatory limits is illegal. Providing source code not only is a failure
to take those reasonable steps, but is quite the opposite. It may even
David Newall wrote:
That being said, a module can be written such
that it only dynamically links with the kernel. Ndiswrapper is an
example of how this can be done: None of the drivers that work under
ndiswrapper make any direct use of the kernel, not in any way, indeed a
wrapper could be
Hi Alan,
To put this in clear and understandable words. The end user has to break
the GPL license and thus violate the copyright of the kernel developers.
Not quite - the GPL deals with distribution. You can put whatever you
like in your own kernel if you don't ever distribute it.
Marcel Holtmann wrote:
if the overall intention is to write a Linux kernel module/driver then
it counts as derivative work for me. No matter how tricky you are and
much you try to circumvent or try to hide this fact. However that is my
personal opinion. You don't have to agree with me here. Ask
I think you're way of base here. Copyright doesn't cover intentions,
it covers expression in a tangible form. So the intention is irrelevant,
what is expressed in the file is what's relevant. If the file doesn't
contain GPL code, then in itself it isn't subject to the GPL.
Will all the
Alan Cox wrote:
It depends whether your file is a derivative work, not whether it
contains GPL code.
Oh, care to explain how a file can be a derived work subject to the
GPL unless it contains or is based on something that is GPL ?
Graeme Gill.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Alan Nisota wrote:
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
drivers/usb/host/ehci-q.c:
qh_make() {
switch (urb-dev-speed) {
case USB_SPEED_HIGH:/* no TT involved */
info1 |= (2 12);/* EPS high */
... if (type == PIPE_BULK) {
info1 |= (EHCI_TUNE_RL_HS 28);
Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:32:35 -0800, Alan Nisota wrote:
Well, this hack allows me to read without babble on my newer machines,
but the one I really need it to work on has an older motherboard, and
refuses to accept the 1024 byte packets. I'll need to either work iwth
the
26 matches
Mail list logo
