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.
I found the original thread where we diagnosed the problem with the old ZIP-100. This message is near the end of the thread, but it includes the descriptor values for the device: https://lists.one-eyed-alien.net/pipermail/usb-storage/2004-March/000051.html Interestingly, the bcdUSB value is 0x0100 -- USB 1.0 rather than 1.1. Maybe we should automatically set the SINGLE_LUN flag for any device with that value? Or would we be better off with an explicit unusual_devs entry for this ZIP-100 model? 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
