On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
of a counter that is
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 17:15 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
Hello Dan,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case
Hello Dan,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
In this patch, the
By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
of a counter that is incremented each time a new rfkill interface is
added.
Suggested-by:
