From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266287AbUH0WiI (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:38:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266233AbUH0WhN (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:37:13 -0400 Received: from email-out1.iomega.com ([147.178.1.82]:52423 "EHLO email.iomega.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266287AbUH0WeB (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Aug 2004 18:34:01 -0400 Subject: Re: [usb-storage] drivers/block/ub.c #6 From: Pat LaVarre To: Pete Zaitcev Cc: usb-storage@lists.one-eyed-alien.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@redhat.com In-Reply-To: <1093640531.8006.68.camel@patlinux.iomegacorp.com> References: <20040730035120.30abd121@lembas.zaitcev.lan><1093640531.8006.68. camel@patlinux.iomegacorp.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Message-Id: <1093645959.8006.219.camel@patlinux.iomegacorp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-5) Date: 27 Aug 2004 16:32:39 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2004 22:33:57.0371 (UTC) FILETIME=[F0EB54B0:01 C48C85] X-imss-version: 2.0 X-imss-result: Passed X-imss-scores: Clean:18.26777 C:4 M:9 S:5 R:5 X-imss-settings: Baseline:1 C:1 M:1 S:1 R:1 (0.0000 0.0000) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Pete Z: > > Date: 30 Jul 2004 04:51:20 -0600 > > ... > > I wish this could be somehow limited to flash keys, How committed are we to the "Low Performance" part of the "Low Performance USB Block driver" title for "config BLK_DEV_UB" found in drivers/block/Kconfig? Do we instead hope for ub.ko to simplify all "generic USB Mass Storage", leaving only the vendor-specific work to usb-storage.ko? I ask because I haven't yet learned how to reconcile two source files: --- drivers/usb/storage/usb.c ... static struct usb_device_id storage_usb_ids [] = { ... #if !defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB) && !defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB_MODULE) { USB_INTERFACE_INFO(USB_CLASS_MASS_STORAGE, US_SC_SCSI, US_PR_BULK) }, #endif ... --- C:/Windows/inf/usbstor.inf: ... [Generic] %GenericBulkOnly.DeviceDesc%=USBSTOR_BULK, USB\Class_08&SubClass_02&Prot_50 %GenericBulkOnly.DeviceDesc%=USBSTOR_BULK, USB\Class_08&SubClass_05&Prot_50 %GenericBulkOnly.DeviceDesc%=USBSTOR_BULK, USB\Class_08&SubClass_06&Prot_50 ... --- Looks to me like we have ub.ko taking over just x 08 06 50, rather than all of the x 08 (06|05|02) 50 = bInterfaceClass ...SubClass ...Protocol considered generic by MSFT? http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/storage/usbfaq.mspx agrees Flash should be x 08 06 50 but gives no clear guidance to the rest of us. I remember we invented x 08 06 50 to be the one tuple to rule them all, to move the determination of PDT (peripheral device type) etc. back into op x12 "INQUIRY" where it belongs, ... Of course the world may yet contain advocates of connecting HDD/FDD as bInterfaceSubClass = x05 "SFF 8070" = Compaq LS-120 or connecting DVD/CD as x02 "SFF 8020" = read-only CD. Pat LaVarre http://linux-pel.blog-city.com/read/790489.htm