hotpluging Sony DSC-f505v
This sounds to me like the hotplug script isn't testing the range the same way usb-storage does. usb-storage does a low >= x >= high, and it sounds like the scripts are doing strict > and <?
Matt
Quoted 41 lines · On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:36:19PM -0500, [email protected] wrote:
DOH!
So I decided to try just for giggles incrementing the device versionmax value and found that it happily installed the driver...Seems like a bug to me...
Quoted 22 lines · On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 [email protected] wrote:
I have a sony DSC 505 still camera. It works just fine out of the box on
the usb-storage driver when insmoded by hand. My Sony usb floppy also
works quite well. The biggest problem I have had is with hotplug. When I
insert my floppy drive it pops to life. All goes well with the hot-plug.
When I inster my sony I get Feb 27 04:11:41 chico/etc/hotplug/usb.agent: ... no drivers for USB product 54c/10/210 So I figured I would add one by hand. Finding what the heck all the stuff
was for an entry was quite a chore. I still don't know exactly what the
values of match flags mean... ohter than they are a mask for which of the
other fields really matter. Then I poked around for another sony device
54c... and found just what I was looking for sorry for the formattingusb-storage
0x000f0x054c0x00100x01060x02100x000x000x000x000x000x00but wait! That says it is for my camera! it says the max version is 210 and mine is 210! Not only that but from what I read the module itself contains the info on what devices it supports... so why would the driver work and the hotplug not? Something is fishy here... please help
Keith BakerQuoted 5 lines
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users_______________________________________________
[email protected]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
Signature · 8 lines
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected] Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver G: Money isn't everything, A.J. AJ: Who convinced you of that? G: The Chief, at my last salary review. -- Mike and Greg User Friendly, 11/3/1998
Quoted 3 lines
This sounds to me like the hotplug script isn't testing the range the same way usb-storage does. usb-storage does a low >= x >= high, and it sounds like the scripts are doing strict > and <?
Yes. Someone submitted a patch to do that a while back. Where's the bug?
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 5 lines
54c... and found just what I was looking for sorry for the formatting
usb-storage
0x000f0x054c0x00100x01060x02100x000x000x000x000x000x00
That formatting is one reason I think an XML representation would be a lot nicer to work with ... :-)
In fact there are scripts to turn the "modules.usbmap" into XML, in case anyone wants to work with tools to massage (present, query, analyse, ...) such data.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel
Quoted 6 lines · David Brownell
Quoted 3 lines
This sounds to me like the hotplug script isn't testing the range the same way usb-storage does. usb-storage does a low >= x >= high, and it sounds like the scripts are doing strict > and <?
Yes. Someone submitted a patch to do that a while back. Where's the bug?
Umm... if the usb-storag driver will accept versions between 0.00 and 2.40 (inclusive), the hotplug scripts should auto-load the usb-storage driver when the attached device has version 2.40 -- according to the report, they do not do so, even though the usb-storage driver is capable of supporting such devices.
So, is this a hotplug script problem or a usb-storage problem? In other words, which is the correct interpretatation of the version fields?
Matt
Signature · 6 lines
Matthew Dharm Home: [email protected] Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver It was a new hope. -- Dust Puppy User Friendly, 12/25/1998
Quoted 2 lines
So, is this a hotplug script problem or a usb-storage problem? In other words, which is the correct interpretatation of the version fields?
Since usbcore seems to agree with usb-storage on that question (well enough that the kernel binding works), hotplug scripts.
Those code paths haven't previously been tested much; as you'll recall, it's essentially "new in 2.4.1" (since it mostly affects handling of usb-storage devices). I'll check in a partial fix soon... it really be nice if someone were to provide BASH patches to handle the 2.4.0 style bitmask testing of match_flags, and really nail the version handling. (Would that require bash2?)
- Dave
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
[email protected]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel