On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:12:29PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > IMO this indicates we shouldn't issue any clear-halts at all unless the > device actually needs it. In general it's not a good idea to do a > clear-halt for an endpoint that isn't actually halted; devices are > prone to misinterpret the request. > > And since the only device we know of that does need the clear-halts is > long obsolete, the simplest strategy is just to leave them out. That > ancient ZIP-100 drive can be accomodated by adding a US_FL_SINGLE_LUN > flag for it, since the Get-Max-LUN is never issued when that flag is > set.
My only issue is that we're effectively dropping support for a device that
currently works. An obsolete device, I admit, but a device we currently
support nevertheless.
I suppose that really is the best option, tho. We just need to be on the
lookout for reports of very old ZIP-100 drives breaking.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Somebody call an exorcist!
-- Dust Puppy
User Friendly, 5/16/1998
pgps8Umt5SEwf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
