On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 07:47:11PM +0100, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> > If possible you want to tell the option driver which interfaces to
> > bind to (white-listing) rather than specifying which not to bind to
> > (black-listing). The latter typically means probing all interfaces,
Dear All,
> If possible you want to tell the option driver which interfaces to
> bind to (white-listing) rather than specifying which not to bind to
> (black-listing). The latter typically means probing all interfaces,
> checking the black list, and then bailing out for unsupported
>
On Wed, 2016-11-16 at 22:11 +0100, Giuseppe Lippolis wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > This will make option grab all the ports, as shown by your dmesg
> > > output. But USB interfaces 0 and 1 are actually cdc-ether and
> > > should
> > > *not* be grabbed by option.
>
> I also have another curiosity:
>
> > This will make option grab all the ports, as shown by your dmesg
> > output. But USB interfaces 0 and 1 are actually cdc-ether and should
> > *not* be grabbed by option.
I also have another curiosity:
Why the driver architecture doesn't recognize autonomously the cdc-ether
Interface and only
Dear All,
thanks for the very interesting discussion.
> > This will make option grab all the ports, as shown by your dmesg
> > output. But USB interfaces 0 and 1 are actually cdc-ether and should
> > *not* be grabbed by option.
> >
> > You want to limit option to grabbing bInterfaceClass=255 to
> Your email client ate the tabs and spit out spaces and line-wrapped the
> patch, making it impossible to apply.
>
> Also, you need to make it against the latest kernel tree, 4.4 is really
old.
>
> And finally, there is no good subject: line, or description of the patch,
or a
> signed-off-by:
Here it is:
--- a/linux-4.4.23/drivers/usb/serial/option.c2016-09-30
10:20:43.0 +0200
+++ b/linux-4.4.30/drivers/usb/serial/option.c 2016-11-14
21:01:15.738450136 +0100
@@ -306,6 +306,9 @@ static void option_instat_callback(struc
#define DLINK_PRODUCT_DWM_652_U5
