Phil Dibowitz wrote:
> 1. You're adding product IDs 1202, 1203, 1204, and 1205. 1203 was
> already there, but you remove it, OK, but 1205 is already there, so
> you'll need to fix that.
I was not removing 1203, it's just the extension of the bcd range. You are
right about 1205, as I wrote, it was a patch against 2.6.11.7. Attached is
a patch against 2.6.12-rc2.
> 2. I'm OK with the full bcd range if Apple is changing it on firmware
> revs... fine, but it's bcd, not hex... 0x9999 =)
I just copied from other entries. There're a lot 0xffffs in unusual_dev.h,
so I assumed it is correct. I changed it to 0x9999.
> 3. It's rather obnoxious to take the original submitter's credit away.
I didn't remove it, I changed it to "based on...". Because I changed
something (the range) in his entry, I thought it is the best to take the
responsibility but keep the origin. Anyway, in the new patch I did it in a
different way.
> 4. Your /proc/bus/usb/devices shows 1204, but I see no evidence 1202 is
> really an iPod.
I don't have an old iPod mini, but you find a lot of evidence here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=0x1202+ipod
Especially this one:
http://www.qbik.ch/usb/devices/showdescr.php?id=2737
> It also looks like 1205's entry is getting mangled, but I haven't
> attempted to apply the patch, so I'm not sure.
No, the patch was ok, but I agree it looks strange. It's not very
readable, because I cannot tell diff to work blockwise instead of
linewise. Because of the similarity of the entries, diff splits and merges
them. Anyway, the new patch "looks" better. ;-)
Signed-off-by: Sven Anderson <sven-linux@anderson.de>
Signed-off-by: Phil Dibowitz <phil@ipom.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
35f4a0c441