Otavio Salvador wrote: > Pat LaVarre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>>>>P: Vendor=10d6 ProdID=1100 Rev= 1.00 >>>>>... >>>>>P: Vendor=054c ProdID=019d Rev= 1.00 >>>>> >>>> >>>>These appear to be instances of USB idProduct: idVendor: bcdDevice >>>> >>> >>>I didn't follow what you meant. Please explain. >> >>I can explain better if you can give me the URL of an archive of the >>original patch? > > > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0509.3/1324.html > > >>The basic idea is that a patch for idVendor=x054C idProduct=x0000- >>x9999 can instead be a patch for just idVendor=x054C idProduct=x019D >>if we have reason to believe that only idVendor=x054C idProduct=x019D >>was observed to need the patch. > > > Well but 054c:019d isn't the device needing the fix. The previous > device is the one. As you can see on the patch. >
You have: >>>>>P: Vendor=10d6 ProdID=1100 Rev= 1.00 but you patched 10d6, 1100, 0000-9999 What you should have patched is: 10d6 1100 0100-0100 The "Rev" is the bcdDevice number, and is the range in question. That make sense? -- Phil Dibowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freeware and Technical Pages Insanity Palace of Metallica http://www.phildev.net/ http://www.ipom.com/ "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Suess
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
