netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: usb: qmi_wwan: add Telit ME910 PID 0x1101 support

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 19 Dec 2017 13:01:55 +0100
From:   Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>
To:     Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] net: usb: qmi_wwan: add Telit ME910 PID 0x1101 support

2017-12-14 22:28 GMT+01:00 Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>:
> 2017-12-14 18:55 GMT+01:00 Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>:
>> Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com> writes:
>>
>>> This patch adds support for Telit ME910 PID 0x1101.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniele Palmas <dnlplm@...il.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Bjørn Mork <bjorn@...k.no>
>>
>>>       bInterfaceSubClass    254
>>
>> Just curious: Is there some meaning hidden here?
>>
>
> That was puzzling also for me, so I checked the original QC
> composition and had the same value. None of the documents I have has a
> reference to this.
>
> As far as I know, from the functional point of view, it is a normal AT
> command port like the other one. But I'll try to investigate a bit
> more..
>

Confirmed, there is no difference between those two interfaces other
than the bInterfaceSubClass code.

Regards,
Daniele

> Thanks,
> Daniele
>
>>
>> Bjørn