Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-13 Thread Alan Stern
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Matthew Dharm wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:18:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > This looks like it's the manufacturer's fault. If they changed the > > product enough so that it has different endpoints, they should have > > changed the serial number as well. > > You

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-13 Thread Matthew Dharm
On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 02:18:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > This looks like it's the manufacturer's fault. If they changed the > product enough so that it has different endpoints, they should have > changed the serial number as well. You mean the revision number, not the serial number. Matt

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-13 Thread Alan Stern
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003, Doug Maxey wrote: > Alan, > > thanks. see below. > Yet at some level, one is good, and the other not. Here are the > relevant strings from /proc/bus/usb/devices > # head -20 fd-* > ==> fd-first <== > T: Bus=02 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 3 Spd=12 MxCh

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-11 Thread Doug Maxey
Henning, You are absolutely correct, I did cut one line too few. The lines are identical. Indeed, the entire descriptor info for each, including no serial number, is identical. ++doug from the keyboard of Henning Meier-Geinitz: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Doug M

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-11 Thread Henning Meier-Geinitz
Hi, On Thu, Sep 11, 2003 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Doug Maxey wrote: > # head -20 fd-* > ==> fd-first <== > T: Bus=02 Lev=02 Prnt=02 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 3 Spd=12 MxCh= 0 > D: Ver= 1.10 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1 > P: Vendor=0644 ProdID= Rev= 0.00 > S: Manufact

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-11 Thread Doug Maxey
Alan, thanks. see below. ++doug from the keyboard of Alan Stern: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Doug Maxey wrote: > > > Howdy, > > > > I have an interesting situation with 2 different TEAC FD-05PUB-x59 > > floppy drives. The x59 designation is on the external device label, > > the two samples i

Re: [linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-11 Thread Alan Stern
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Doug Maxey wrote: > Howdy, > > I have an interesting situation with 2 different TEAC FD-05PUB-x59 > floppy drives. The x59 designation is on the external device label, > the two samples in my lab are -159 and -259. > > Both show the same descriptors, and both indica

[linux-usb-devel] question on 2.4.21 unusual_dev list

2003-09-10 Thread Doug Maxey
Howdy, I have an interesting situation with 2 different TEAC FD-05PUB-x59 floppy drives. The x59 designation is on the external device label, the two samples in my lab are -159 and -259. Both show the same descriptors, and both indicate they are C/B/I devices according to lsusb. How