lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] r8152: add Linksys USB3GIGV1 id
Hi Doug!

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Grant Grundler <grundler@chromium.org> wrote:
>> This linksys dongle by default comes up in cdc_ether mode.
>> This patch allows r8152 to claim the device:
>> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 13b1:0041 Linksys
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@chromium.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c | 10 ++++++++++
>> drivers/net/usb/r8152.c | 2 ++
>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> V3: for backwards compat, add #ifdef CONFIG_USB_RTL8152 around
>> the cdc_ether blacklist entry so the cdc_ether driver can
>> still claim the device if r8152 driver isn't configured.
>>
>> V2: add LINKSYS_VENDOR_ID to cdc_ether blacklist
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c b/drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c
>> index 8ab281b478f2..446dcc0f1f70 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/cdc_ether.c
>> @@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static const struct driver_info wwan_info = {
>> #define DELL_VENDOR_ID 0x413C
>> #define REALTEK_VENDOR_ID 0x0bda
>> #define SAMSUNG_VENDOR_ID 0x04e8
>> +#define LINKSYS_VENDOR_ID 0x13b1
>> #define LENOVO_VENDOR_ID 0x17ef
>
> Slight nit that "LI" sorts after "LE". You got it right in the other case...

The list isn't sorted by any rational thing I can see. I managed to
check my OCD reaction to sort the list numerically. :)

>> #define NVIDIA_VENDOR_ID 0x0955
>> #define HP_VENDOR_ID 0x03f0
>> @@ -737,6 +738,15 @@ static const struct usb_device_id products[] = {
>> .driver_info = 0,
>> },
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_USB_RTL8152
>> +/* Linksys USB3GIGV1 Ethernet Adapter */
>> +{
>> + USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(LINKSYS_VENDOR_ID, 0x0041, USB_CLASS_COMM,
>> + USB_CDC_SUBCLASS_ETHERNET, USB_CDC_PROTO_NONE),
>> + .driver_info = 0,
>> +},
>> +#endif
>
> I believe you want to use IS_ENABLED(), don't you?

Ah yes - I wasn't aware IS_ENABLED existed. Will respin V4 with this
if there isn't any other feedback.


> There's still a weird esoteric side case where kernel modules don't
> all need to be included in the filesystem just because they were built
> at the same time. ...but IMHO that seems like enough of a nit that we
> can probably ignore it unless someone has a better idea.

I think that would require a run time check. I'm perfectly willing to
ignore that case. :)

thanks!
grant

>
>
> -Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 02:08    [W:0.091 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site