On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Matthew Dharm wrote: > 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.
If we add an unusual_devs entry for the old ZIP-100 with US_FL_SINGLE_LUN then it should continue to work okay. But we can't do that without the proper ID values. Maybe they're buried somewhere in the mailing list archives, or maybe Pat Lavarre can provide them. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
