Re: [PATCH 3/4] rtl8xxxu: Mark 0x20f4:0x648b as tested

2016-07-09 Thread Jes Sorensen 
Kalle Valo  writes:
> jes.soren...@redhat.com writes:
>
>> From: Jes Sorensen 
>>
>> Successfully tested by Jocelyn Mayer
>>
>> Reported-by: J. Mayer 
>> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen 
>> ---
>>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 9 +++--
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c 
>> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> index cfa5528..90d21c3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
>> @@ -5852,6 +5852,10 @@ static int rtl8xxxu_probe(struct usb_interface 
>> *interface,
>>  if (id->idProduct == 0x1004)
>>  untested = 0;
>>  break;
>> +case 0x20f4:
>> +if (id->idProduct == 0x648b)
>> +untested = 0;
>> +break;
>>  default:
>>  break;
>>  }
>> @@ -6021,6 +6025,9 @@ static struct usb_device_id dev_table[] = {
>>  /* Tested by Andrea Merello */
>>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x050d, 0x1004, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>>  .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>> +/* Tested by Jocelyn Mayer */
>> +{USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x20f4, 0x648b, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>> +.driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>>  /* Currently untested 8188 series devices */
>>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(USB_VENDOR_ID_REALTEK, 0x8191, 0xff, 0xff, 
>> 0xff),
>>  .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>> @@ -6080,8 +6087,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id dev_table[] = {
>>  .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x2019, 0xed17, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>>  .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>> -{USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x20f4, 0x648b, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>> -.driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x4855, 0x0090, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>>  .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x4856, 0x0091, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>
> But will this now conflict with rtlwifi?
>
> drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/sw.c:
> {RTL_USB_DEVICE(0x20f4, 0x648b, rtl92cu_hal_cfg)}, /*TRENDnet -
> Cameo*/
>
> Like discussed before, I don't like having two drivers support same
> hardware and users more or less randomly using either of them.

Same procedure as last time - these are still listed under UNTESTED so
only get configured it people explicitly enable them.

There is no change here from how the code was prior.

Jes
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 3/4] rtl8xxxu: Mark 0x20f4:0x648b as tested

2016-07-05 Thread Kalle Valo 
jes.soren...@redhat.com writes:

> From: Jes Sorensen 
>
> Successfully tested by Jocelyn Mayer
>
> Reported-by: J. Mayer 
> Signed-off-by: Jes Sorensen 
> ---
>  drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c | 9 +++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c 
> b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> index cfa5528..90d21c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtl8xxxu/rtl8xxxu_core.c
> @@ -5852,6 +5852,10 @@ static int rtl8xxxu_probe(struct usb_interface 
> *interface,
>   if (id->idProduct == 0x1004)
>   untested = 0;
>   break;
> + case 0x20f4:
> + if (id->idProduct == 0x648b)
> + untested = 0;
> + break;
>   default:
>   break;
>   }
> @@ -6021,6 +6025,9 @@ static struct usb_device_id dev_table[] = {
>  /* Tested by Andrea Merello */
>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x050d, 0x1004, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>   .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
> +/* Tested by Jocelyn Mayer */
> +{USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x20f4, 0x648b, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
> + .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>  /* Currently untested 8188 series devices */
>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(USB_VENDOR_ID_REALTEK, 0x8191, 0xff, 0xff, 
> 0xff),
>   .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
> @@ -6080,8 +6087,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id dev_table[] = {
>   .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x2019, 0xed17, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>   .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
> -{USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x20f4, 0x648b, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
> - .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x4855, 0x0090, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),
>   .driver_info = (unsigned long)_fops},
>  {USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(0x4856, 0x0091, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff),

But will this now conflict with rtlwifi?

drivers/net/wireless/realtek/rtlwifi/rtl8192cu/sw.c:{RTL_USB_DEVICE(0x20f4, 
0x648b, rtl92cu_hal_cfg)}, /*TRENDnet - Cameo*/

Like discussed before, I don't like having two drivers support same
hardware and users more or less randomly using either of them.

-- 
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html