On 2013.08.08 21:42, Alan Stern wrote: >> I expect that, before you decided to add a quirk to the >> kernel, you must first have tried to get the manufacturer to fix >> compliance, by asking the user to contact them, and must have found that >> this effort went nowhere. > > This has happened. Not for every quirk, though. Besides, even if the > manufacturer does fix the defect, that won't make any difference to all > the devices that have already been shipped.
Only for devices that have a non reflashable ROM, which is always a bad idea and a sure way for a manufacturer to indicate that they don't mind shortchanging their consumers. On the other hand, if you have anything reprogrammable on your device, and since the device will be plugged into a capable host always (with the USB specs also being quite accommodating for this kind of operation), providing a fix for devices that have already shipped shouldn't be that much of an issue. I know of a few USB flash drive manufacturers for instance providing low level utilities for their devices, some of them containing both the binary images of the controller's EEPROM, and a host utility (Windows only, as you may guess) to reflash them. >> Is that a fair assessment? > > Indeed. There's so much material in the mailing lists that it isn't > easy to filter out any particular class of comments, but there are > plenty of examples where people have complained about manufacturers' > disregard for the specs. OK, I'm not going to doubt you there. I'm just wondering how strongly worded these comments might be, and how long it may take for them to have any kind of effect, if any. > There is even a place in the USB mass-storage driver where, in despair > of getting some vendors ever to fix their firmware, I added a blanket > quirk for _all_ devices with those vendor IDs. (The vendors in > question were Nokia, Nikon, Pentax, and Motorola, and the bug was that > the devices would return the total number of data blocks they contained > when asked for the highest available block number -- an off-by-one > error.) I guess naming and shaming can work too, if the audience is large enough. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
