netdev - Re: [PATCH] hso: add Vendor/Product ID's for new devices

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <49D38173.6050103@option.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:00:03 +0200
From:	Jan Dumon <j.dumon@...ion.com>
To:	Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
CC:	linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Paulius Zaleckas <paulius.zaleckas@...tonika.lt>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hso: add Vendor/Product ID's for new devices

Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009, Jan Dumon wrote:
> 
>> From: Jan Dumon <j.dumon@...ion.com>
>>
>> Add Vendor/Product ID's for new devices.
>> Removed duplicate product ID 0x7361.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Dumon <j.dumon@...ion.com>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> index fe98aca..d47c508 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/usb/hso.c
>> @@ -462,9 +462,16 @@ static const struct usb_device_id hso_ids[] = {
>>  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7701)},
>>  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7801)},
>>  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7901)},
>> -	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x7361)},
>> -	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd057)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x8200)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0x8201)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd035)},
>>  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd055)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd155)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd255)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd057)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd157)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd257)},
>> +	{USB_DEVICE(0x0af0, 0xd357)},
>>  	{}
>>  };
>>  MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(usb, hso_ids);
> 
> Is this list supposed to be kept in numerical order?  The entries for
> 0xd057 and 0xd157 are in the wrong place.

We have an internal document with all the product ID's we use and I've followed that order. That way
it's a lot easier for me to compare the two and spot the missing ID's every time the list gets updated.

The devices with ID's 0x[0-2]55 are all from the same 'family' as are those with ID's 0x[0-3]57.
That is why they are out of numerical order...

Greets,
Jan.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html