p54usb: Remove duplicate Medion MD40900 device id
PATCH 1/1 p54usb: Remove duplicate Medion MD40900 device id
The Medion MD40900 device id [0x0cde, 0x0006] is defined twice. Remove the duplicate.
--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0 -1
@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
Quoted 14 lines · Leann Ogasawara
The Medion MD40900 device id [
0x0cde,0x0006] is defined twice. Remove the duplicate.Originally-by Ben Collins <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leann Ogasawara <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-0
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { · line 74
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-1@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */
Do you know for certain that this device is a Version 1 chip, and for that reason, you are removing it from the version 2 list?
If not, NACK.
Larry
Quoted 26 lines · Larry Finger
Quoted 14 lines · Leann Ogasawara
The Medion MD40900 device id [
0x0cde,0x0006] is defined twice. Remove the duplicate.Originally-by Ben Collins <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leann Ogasawara <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-0drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { · line 74
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-1@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */Do you know for certain that this device is a Version 1 chip, and for that reason, you are removing it from the version 2 list?
Quoted 1 line
If not, NACK.
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
John
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
Quoted 35 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 26 lines · Larry Finger
Quoted 14 lines · Leann Ogasawara
The Medion MD40900 device id [
0x0cde,0x0006] is defined twice. Remove the duplicate.Originally-by Ben Collins <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leann Ogasawara <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-0drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { · line 74
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-1@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */Do you know for certain that this device is a Version 1 chip, and for that reason, you are removing it from the version 2 list?
Quoted 1 line
If not, NACK.
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
Quoted 5 lines
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
It was flagged by a script I wrote to detect overlapping drivers. This driver had dual entries for the same device, so the second was basically giving depmod another entry to worry about. Trivial, yes, but just seemed cleaner to not do that in general.
I think we had decided awhile back to just comment out this entry with a note that says something like "already above, just listing for clarity" or similar.
Signature · 4 lines
Bluecherry: http://www.bluecherrydvr.com/ SwissDisk : http://www.swissdisk.com/ Ubuntu : http://www.ubuntu.com/ My Blog : http://ben-collins.blogspot.com/
Quoted 29 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 26 lines · Larry Finger
Quoted 14 lines · Leann Ogasawara
The Medion MD40900 device id [
0x0cde,0x0006] is defined twice. Remove the duplicate.Originally-by Ben Collins <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Leann Ogasawara <[email protected]>--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-0drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { · line 74
Quoted 7 lines
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +0
-1@@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */Do you know for certain that this device is a Version 1 chip, and for that reason, you are removing it from the version 2 list?
Quoted 1 line
If not, NACK.
Quoted 8 lines
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
I don't believe there is any harm from the duplicate entry, it just seemed unnecessary.
Quoted 2 lines
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
Indeed, this was just a patch we'd been carrying to tidy things up. There was no actual bug involved. I'd be happy to send a v2 of the patch which comments out the duplicate entry and adds a note as to why. Or I'd be fine just leaving the code as is and we'll drop the patch we're carrying locally in Ubuntu.
Thanks,
Leann
Quoted 14 lines · Leann Ogasawara
Quoted 8 lines · John W. Linville
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
I don't believe there is any harm from the duplicate entry, it just seemed unnecessary.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
Indeed, this was just a patch we'd been carrying to tidy things up. There was no actual bug involved. I'd be happy to send a v2 of the patch which comments out the duplicate entry and adds a note as to why. Or I'd be fine just leaving the code as is and we'll drop the patch we're carrying locally in Ubuntu.
FWIW, I like the 'comment-out and add a note' option.
Thanks!
John
Signature · 2 lines
John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you [email protected] might be all we have. Be ready.
PATCH v2 1/1 p54usb: Comment out duplicate Medion MD40900 device id
Quoted 18 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 17 lines · Leann Ogasawara
Quoted 8 lines · John W. Linville
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
I don't believe there is any harm from the duplicate entry, it just seemed unnecessary.
Quoted 2 lines
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Indeed, this was just a patch we'd been carrying to tidy things up. There was no actual bug involved. I'd be happy to send a v2 of the patch which comments out the duplicate entry and adds a note as to why. Or I'd be fine just leaving the code as is and we'll drop the patch we're carrying locally in Ubuntu.
FWIW, I like the 'comment-out and add a note' option.
Here's the 'comment-out and add a note' option. Let me know if you'd prefer a different style formatting etc.
Thanks,
Leann
Quoted 1 line
From
5d1b6029ffc0eb770cd34f7dd1a910451c0cda4dMon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Leann Ogasawara <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:01:51 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] p54usb: Comment out duplicate Medion MD40900 device id
The Medion MD40900 device id [0x0cde, 0x0006] is defined twice. Comment out the duplicate.
--- drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c | 3 ++- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c +2 -1
@@ -69,7 +69,8 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = { {USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)}, /* Cohiba Proto board */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)}, /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/ {USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)}, /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/ - {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, /* Medion MD40900 */ +/* {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)}, * Medion MD40900 already listed above, +* just noting it here for clarity */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)}, /* Sagem XG703A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)}, /* Zcomax XG-705A */ {USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)}, /* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
Quoted 18 lines · John W. Linville
Quoted 17 lines · Leann Ogasawara
Quoted 8 lines · John W. Linville
So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the different firmwares or something like that? Perhaps a comment that says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy? Since the driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real need for grouping the IDs?
OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry? It "seems" wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
I don't believe there is any harm from the duplicate entry, it just seemed unnecessary.
Quoted 2 lines
Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up? I'm guessing there wasn't an actual bug involved?
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Indeed, this was just a patch we'd been carrying to tidy things up. There was no actual bug involved. I'd be happy to send a v2 of the patch which comments out the duplicate entry and adds a note as to why. Or I'd be fine just leaving the code as is and we'll drop the patch we're carrying locally in Ubuntu.
FWIW, I like the 'comment-out and add a note' option.
I'm a little late here after being offline, but I too like the comment out option.
Larry