>> > My problem is that I want the driver binding to happen >> > for all such kind of cable from different vendors and >> > from new vendors also in future. >> >> I think you can use Device class & subclass instead of Vendor id/device >> id. > > That assumes there IS a class. (And that those cost-cutting vendors > implement it correctly ...) But I've yet to see such cables implement > any communications device class spec; IMO there's likely no better > solution than maintaining a list of vendor and product codes. >
Thats right, but he wants to support new (future) vendors! > >> > How can I create a little more generic usb_device_id >> > entry rather than very specifically mentioning the >> > VendorID and device ID of all such cables from >> > different manufacturers. Do all these cables fall >> > under a particulas combination of device class and >> > subclass? >> >> Yes, they fall under USB communication class. >> As an example see usb/acm.c. > > Actually, don't. That's a 2.4 file. Use 2.6 kernels. :) Don't they fall under Communication class? I thought so, if not please correct me. That's 2.4 file, sorry. Please check 2.6 file: usb/class/cdc-acm.c > > And by the way, if the device implements such a class, you should use > the standard Linux-USB driver for that class unless you are planning to > replace that driver. > > - Dave > > >> For more info on this, see the comments in >> usb.c before function "usb_match_id". > > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
