USB: serial: pl2303: Add IBM device IDs
Subsystems (2)
PATCH v2 1/1 USB: serial: pl2303: Add IBM device IDs
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.
drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c | 1 + drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h | 3 +++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.c +1 -0
@@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ static const struct usb_device_id id_table[] = { { USB_DEVICE(ADLINK_VENDOR_ID, ADLINK_ND6530GC_PRODUCT_ID) }, { USB_DEVICE(SMART_VENDOR_ID, SMART_PRODUCT_ID) }, { USB_DEVICE(AT_VENDOR_ID, AT_VTKIT3_PRODUCT_ID) }, + { USB_DEVICE(IBM_VENDOR_ID, IBM_PRODUCT_ID) }, { } /* Terminating entry */ };
drivers/usb/serial/pl2303.h +3 -0
@@ -35,6 +35,9 @@#define ATEN_PRODUCT_UC232B 0x2022#define ATEN_PRODUCT_ID2 0x2118 +#define IBM_VENDOR_ID 0x04b3 +#define IBM_PRODUCT_ID 0x4016 +#define IODATA_VENDOR_ID 0x04bb#define IODATA_PRODUCT_ID 0x0a03#define IODATA_PRODUCT_ID_RSAQ5 0x0a0e
Signature · 1 line
2.27.0
Johan Hovold
maintainerQuoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.
Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
Please take another look at the documentation I pointed to.
Johan
Quoted 5 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 3 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Given it's come through me, and now has been sent to you, I think the chain of s-o-b is appropriate.
Cheers,
Joel
Quoted 4 lines
Please take another look at the documentation I pointed to.
Johan
Johan Hovold
maintainerQuoted 12 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 11 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
Quoted 2 lines
Given it's come through me, and now has been sent to you, I think the chain of s-o-b is appropriate.
So the chain of SoB is correct, but the authorship is not.
You can use git-format-patch and git-send-email to avoid this kind of problems, but just manually inserting a From line in the body of the mail works too.
Johan
Quoted 14 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 12 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 11 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
You are incorrect. Eddie is the author.
Quoted 11 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Given it's come through me, and now has been sent to you, I think the chain of s-o-b is appropriate.
So the chain of SoB is correct, but the authorship is not.
You can use git-format-patch and git-send-email to avoid this kind of problems, but just manually inserting a From line in the body of the mail works too.
Johan
Johan Hovold
maintainerQuoted 18 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 17 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 15 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 13 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
You are incorrect. Eddie is the author.
Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain.
If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a patch from there, then the chain should be:
SoB: E
SoB: J
SoB: E
but this is starting to look a bit ridiculous.
Johan
Quoted 32 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 18 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 17 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 15 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 13 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
You are incorrect. Eddie is the author.
Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain.
Quoted 8 lines
If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a patch from there, then the chain should be:
SoB: E
SoB: J
SoB: Ebut this is starting to look a bit ridiculous.
I agree. I would appreciate it if you applied the patch, with or without my sob in whatever order you deem fit.
Johan Hovold
maintainerQuoted 36 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 35 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 18 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 17 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 15 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 13 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 2 lines
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
You are incorrect. Eddie is the author.
Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain.
If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a patch from there, then the chain should be:
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
SoB: E
SoB: J
SoB: Ebut this is starting to look a bit ridiculous.
I agree. I would appreciate it if you applied the patch, with or without my sob in whatever order you deem fit.
Ok, I'll assume what you intended was E-J-E but that perhaps git-format-patch swallowed the last SoB. Thanks for clarifying.
I was going to apply to the patch, but I see now that you didn't provide any details about the product apart from it being a UPS and that's not reflected in the define name.
Do you have a pointer to device (family) in question?
Johan
Quoted 36 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 28 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 27 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 12 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 11 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 10 lines · Joel Stanley
Quoted 9 lines · Johan Hovold
Quoted 8 lines · Eddie James
IBM manufactures a PL2303 device for UPS communications. Add the vendor and product IDs so that the PL2303 driver binds to the device.
Signed-off-by Joel Stanley <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Eddie James <[email protected]>---
Changes since v1:
- Fix commit message Signed-off-by ordering.Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Almost there. You're still missing a Co-developed-by tag, a From line, or both.
It's neither. This patch was applied to a tree by myself, and I asked Eddie to send it to mainline for merging.
Then you are missing a From line. As the patch looks like know, Eddie is considered the author and not you.
You are incorrect. Eddie is the author.
Then what is your SoB doing there in the first place? If Eddie is the sole author as well as the submitter, and you didn't touch the patch in between, then your SoB does not belong in the chain.
If you applied Eddie's patch to your shared tree and Eddie generated a patch from there, then the chain should be:
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 5 lines
SoB: E
SoB: J
SoB: Ebut this is starting to look a bit ridiculous.
I agree. I would appreciate it if you applied the patch, with or without my sob in whatever order you deem fit.
Quoted 8 lines
Ok, I'll assume what you intended was E-J-E but that perhaps git-format-patch swallowed the last SoB. Thanks for clarifying.
I was going to apply to the patch, but I see now that you didn't provide any details about the product apart from it being a UPS and that's not reflected in the define name.
Do you have a pointer to device (family) in question?
Hi,
It's a pretty generic pl2303 device and doesn't have to be used for UPS, but that is our use-case. Here is a page with some detail about the device: https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9/9009-22A?topic=power-uninterruptible-supply
Thanks,
Eddie
Quoted 2 lines
Johan
Quoted 6 lines · Eddie James
Quoted 4 lines · Johan Hovold
I was going to apply to the patch, but I see now that you didn't provide any details about the product apart from it being a UPS and that's not reflected in the define name.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
Do you have a pointer to device (family) in question?
It's a pretty generic pl2303 device and doesn't have to be used for UPS, but that is our use-case. Here is a page with some detail about the device:
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9/9009-22A?topic=power-uninterruptible-supply
Ah, ok, I thought it may have been built into the UPS.
I've applied the patch now, thanks!
Johan
Johan Hovold
maintainerQuoted 4 lines · Eddie James
It's a pretty generic pl2303 device and doesn't have to be used for UPS, but that is our use-case. Here is a page with some detail about the device:
https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/power9/9009-22A?topic=power-uninterruptible-supply
Could you please also post the output of "lsusb -v" for this device to this thread for completeness? This may be needed to improve the current type detection for newer pl2303 devices.
Do you know which type of PL2303 you use?
Thanks!
Johan