çå: [PATCH 7/13] USB:support the new interfaces of Huawei Data Card devices in option driver

From: Fangxiaozhi (Franko)
Date: Mon Jul 16 2012 - 23:55:42 EST

Next message: Olaf Hering: "Re: [PATCH 02/15] Drivers: hv: Add KVP definitions for IP addressinjection"
Previous message: Erik Jones: "[PATCH 2/2] staging: rts5139: rts51x_card: fixed brace coding style issue"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear bjorn:

"Fangxiaozhi (Franko)" <fangxiaozhi@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> From: fangxiaozhi <huananhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 1. This patch is based on the kernel of 3.5-rc6
> 2. In this patch, we add new micro for matching the series USB devices with vendor ID and interface information.
> 3. In this patch, we add new declarations into option.c to support the new interfaces of Huawei Data Card devices.
> Signed-off-by: fangxiaozhi <huananhu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> -----------------------
> --- ../test/linux-3.5-rc6/include/linux/usb.h 2012-07-08 08:23:56.000000000 +0800
> +++ include/linux/usb.h 2012-07-13 17:45:59.000000000 +0800
> @@ -828,6 +828,27 @@ static inline int usb_make_path(struct u
> .bInterfaceClass = (cl), \
> .bInterfaceSubClass = (sc), \
> .bInterfaceProtocol = (pr)
> +/**
> + * * USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO - describe a specific usb device with a class of usb interfaces, but independent of product ID

This chunk seems like a copy of the patch Gustavo Padovan just
submitted? Should really be listed as a precondition instead of
included here, should it not?
-----In your opinions, it is better to declare this defining in the option.c file, but not usb.h file, right?

> --- ../test/linux-3.5-rc6/drivers/usb/serial/option.c 2012-07-13 14:22:52.000000000 +0800
> +++ drivers/usb/serial/option.c 2012-07-13 17:38:38.000000000 +0800
> @@ -572,6 +572,115 @@ static const struct option_blacklist_inf
> };
>
> static const struct usb_device_id option_ids[] = {
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x01) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x02) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x03) },

I guess this means that the device specific entries matching this could
and should be removed, does it not? All these seem redundant with your
patch:
------The new matching rule is independent of the special product ID, so it can support a series products of Huawei Data Card.
-----The following matching rule is only for the specific product, and it is covered by the new matching rule, so I think that we can remove the following matching sentences.

{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4605, 0xff, 0x01, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4605, 0xff, 0x01, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K5005, 0xff, 0x01, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K5005, 0xff, 0x01, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K5005, 0xff, 0x01, 0x33) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K3770, 0xff, 0x02, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K3770, 0xff, 0x02, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K3771, 0xff, 0x02, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K3771, 0xff, 0x02, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4510, 0xff, 0x01, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4510, 0xff, 0x01, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4511, 0xff, 0x01, 0x31) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_K4511, 0xff, 0x01, 0x32) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x01) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x02) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x03) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x10) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x12) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x01, 0x13) },
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x02, 0x01) }, /* E398 3G Modem */
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x02, 0x02) }, /* E398 3G PC UI Interface */
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, HUAWEI_PRODUCT_E353, 0xff, 0x02, 0x03) }, /* E398 3G Application Interface */

> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x04) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x05) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x06) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x0A) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x0B) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x0D) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x0E) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x0F) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x10) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x01, 0x12) },

I see that the holes I know of are there, like protocol 0x08, 0x09 and
0x11. You wouldn't happen to have a complete list of those as well? I
am interested in the ones which can be expected to work with the
qmi_wwan driver. Currently we match

0xff, 0x01, 0x09 (along with a 0xff, 0x01, 0x08 data interface)
0xff, 0x01, 0x11
0xff, 0x01, 0x39 (along with a 0xff, 0x01, 0x38 data interface)

but I suspect there are more variants which could be handled by that
driver.
------Sorry, protocol 0x08, 0x09 and 0x11 is defined as the ECM port, they are supported by other kernel driver, but not option.c driver.
------So, we don't declare them in option.c.

[..]
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x02, 0x79) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x02, 0x7A) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x02, 0x7B) },
> + { USB_VENDOR_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(HUAWEI_VENDOR_ID, 0xff, 0x02, 0x7C) },
> +
> { USB_DEVICE(OPTION_VENDOR_ID, OPTION_PRODUCT_COLT) },
> { USB_DEVICE(OPTION_VENDOR_ID, OPTION_PRODUCT_RICOLA) },
> { USB_DEVICE(OPTION_VENDOR_ID, OPTION_PRODUCT_RICOLA_LIGHT) },

And should the new entries be sorted with the other Huawei entries?
Putting them in front of the Option entries looks a bit strange
-------OK, we will improve this, and then update the patch.

Best Regards,

Franko Fang
N‹§²æìr¸›yúèšØb²X¬¶ÇvØ^–)Þ{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±‘êçzX§¶›¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚ&j:+v‰¨¾«‘êçzZ+€Ê+zf£¢·hšˆ§~††Ûiÿûàz¹®w¥¢¸?™¨èÚ&¢)ßf”ù^jÇy§m…á@A«a¶Úÿ0¶ìh®å’i

Next message: Olaf Hering: "Re: [PATCH 02/15] Drivers: hv: Add KVP definitions for IP addressinjection"
Previous message: Erik Jones: "[PATCH 2/2] staging: rts5139: rts51x_card: fixed brace coding style issue"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]